[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45ED2837.3020108@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:37:11 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...ell.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Xen & VMI?
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 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?
IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests.
> 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_.
I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops reduces
the QA effort. You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test against.
cheers,
Gerd
--
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>
-
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