[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.63.0608041544130.18862@qynat.qvtvafvgr.pbz>
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 15:45:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Lang <dlang@...italinsight.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
cc: Antonio Vargas <windenntw@...il.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, jeremy@...source.com,
greg@...ah.com, zach@...are.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
torvalds@...l.org, hch@...radead.org, jlo@...are.com,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, simon@...source.com,
ian.pratt@...source.com, jeremy@...p.org
Subject: Re: A proposal - binary
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>>
>> so if I understand this correctly we are saying that a kernel compiled to
>> run on hypervisor A would need to be recompiled to run on hypervisor B, and
>> recompiled again to run on hypervisor C, etc
>>
> no the actual implementation of the operation structure is dynamic and can be
> picked
> at runtime, so you can compile a kernel for A,B *and* C and at runtime the
> kernel
> picks the one you have
Ok, I was under the impression that this sort of thing was frowned upon for
hotpath items (which I understand a good chunk of this would be).
this still leaves the question of old client on new hypervisors that is
continueing in other branches of this thread.
David Lang
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists