[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070306081909.GA9331@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 09:19:09 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>
Subject: Xen & VMI?
btw., while we have everyone on the phone and talking ;) Technologically
it would save us a whole lot of trouble in Linux if 'external'
hypervisors could standardize around a single ABI - such as VMI. Is
there any deep reason why Xen couldnt use VMI to talk to Linux? I
suspect a range of VMI vectors could be set aside for Xen's dom0 (and
other) APIs that have no current VMI equivalent - if there's broad
agreement on the current 60+ base VMI vectors that center around basic
x86 CPU capabilities - which make up the largest portion of our
paravirtualization complexity. Pipe dream?
there are already 5 major hypervisors we are going to support (in
alphabetical order):
- KVM
- lguest
- Windows
- VMWare
- Xen
the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_. Okay, lguest and KVM is special
because both the client and the server side is in the same source code,
so the ABI [if any] is alot easier to manage. That still leaves another
three...
Ingo
-
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