[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200909221652.35446.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 16:52:32 +0930
From: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
"virtualization@...ts.osdl.org" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: Paravirtualization on VMware's Platform [VMI].
On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 06:30:21 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 09/20/2009 10:52 AM, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Sep 2009 09:42:47 +0200
> > Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> If we were able to rip out all (or most) of paravirt from arch/x86 it
> >> would be tempting for other technical reasons - but the patch above
> >> is well localized.
> >>
> > interesting question is if this would allow us to remove a few of the
> > paravirt hooks....
> >
>
> kvm will be removing the pvmmu support soon; and Xen is talking about
> running paravirtualized guests in a vmx/svm container where they don't
> need most of the hooks.
When they're all gone, even I don't think lguest is sufficient excuse
to keep CONFIG_PARAVIRT. Oh well. But that will probably be a while.
Cheers,
Rusty.
--
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