[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <97D612E30E1F88419025B06CB4CF1BE10379EBF9@scsmsx412.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:40:29 -0700
From: "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@...el.com>
To: "Anthony Liguori" <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: <kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Avi Kivity" <avi@...ranet.com>
Subject: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, see, the initial goal was to make it possible to use the KVM
> > > paravirtualizations on other hypervisors. However, I don't think
this
> > > is really going to be possible in general so maybe it's better to
just
> > > use leaf 0. I'll let others chime in before sending a new patch.
> > >
> >
> > Hm. Obviously you can just define a signature for "kvm-compatible
> > hypercall interface" and make it common that way, but it gets tricky
if
> > the hypervisor supports multiple hypercall interfaces, including the
kvm
> > one. Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something?
> >
>
> Yeah, that works with me.
To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need different
and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted
virtualization? That would not be good for Linux.
>
> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>
> > J
Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center
-
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