[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070306091006.GA26073@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:10:06 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>
Cc: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de>,
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?
* Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com> wrote:
> > > reduces the QA effort. You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to
> > > test against.
> >
> > yes, just like we have thousands of separate PC boards to support.
> > But as long as the basic ABI is the same, the QA effort on the Linux
> > kernel side is alot more focused. (Distros still have
> > 18446744073709551616 total combinations to QA, and have to make an
> > educated guess to reduce that to a more manageable number.)
>
> But hardware PC boards don't do anything as remotely complicate as
> changing the semantics required for correctness in you MMU
> implementation. [...]
ugh, PC boards are actually far worse and far more diverse than any
variances between hypervisors, but i digress.
anyway, my point stands: the Linux kernel is significantly more
maintainable and easier to QA if it has only a single 'external'
hypervisor ABI to worry about - and that might as well be VMI. This is a
really obvious point, i expected the discussion to center more around
the specifics of such a move ;-)
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