[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48E11751.8070901@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:58:41 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: akataria@...are.com
CC: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"avi@...hat.com" <avi@...hat.com>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
Zach Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Daniel Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
"Jun.Nakajima@...el.Com" <Jun.Nakajima@...el.Com>
Subject: Re: Use CPUID to communicate with the hypervisor.
Alok Kataria wrote:
>> Shouldn't you check the hypervisor signature here?
>
> Nope the whole idea of not checking the hypervisor signature is that we
> should keep this interface generic.
Unfortunately, given current evidence this is entirely unrealistic.
> So for instance right now, VMware has defined 40000010 leaf, if either
> kvm/xen think it could be useful they could just define that leaf to
> return nonzero value and the kernel will start using it for them.
> Likewise, if in future either kvm/xen come up with a need to define a
> new CPUID leaf they can define the semantics for that leaf, and the
> corresponding kernel side stuff. If VMware, think that this new leaf is
> useful, we can then support that leaf in our hypervisor or return zero
> otherwise.
This is only true if you can also except M$ and other hypervisor vendors
to stick to it. So far, hypervisor vendors have hardly shown any
inclination toward standardization.
Hence I really don't think it is sane.
-hpa
--
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