[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45ED3121.8090308@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:15:13 +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:
> * Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...e.de> wrote:
>
>>> [using vmi rom]
>> IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests.
>
> yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to
> lkml ;)
Yep. The fact that it is possible to do that doesn't imply that it is
the best solution.
Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use
the vmi interface?
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
xen and vmware are still two very different hypervisors from the memory
mangement point of view. I doubt moving the abstraction line within the
linux kernel from paravirt_ops to vmi makes QA easier.
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