[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45DC95A8.1090907@vmware.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:55:36 -0800
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@....com>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@....de>, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.osdl.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops
interface
Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote:
>
>
>> That was always its intention. It's not a direct interface to a hypervisor,
>> but an somewhat abstracted interface to a "hypervisor driver"
>>
>
> I thought that hypervisor driver was some binary blob that can be directly
> accessed via paravirt_ops?
>
There are no more binary blobs being used by paravirt-ops hypervisors.
I prefer the term "open hypercode layer".
>> But you're right that there are currently still quite a lot of hooks
>> being added. I plan to be much more strict on that in the future.
>>
>
> And it seems that the hooks are not generic but bound to a particular
> hypervisor. Should the Xen specific stuff not be in the binary blob?
>
Xen doesn't use a hypercode layer, and there is no way to do what they
need to do without hooks in the kernel.
Zach
-
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