[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201106090938.23027.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 09:38:22 +0200
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Timur Tabi <timur@...escale.com>, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
kumar.gala@...escale.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
cmetcalf@...era.com, akpm@...nel.org, dsaxena@...aro.org,
linux-console@...r.kernel.org, greg@...ah.com,
alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] [v4] drivers/virt: introduce Freescale hypervisor management driver
On Thursday 09 June 2011 01:10:09 Randy Dunlap wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2011 17:45:54 -0500 Timur Tabi wrote:
>
> > Add the drivers/virt directory, which houses drivers that support
> > virtualization environments, and add the Freescale hypervisor management
> > driver.
>
> It can't go in linux/virt or linux/virt/fsl instead? why drivers/ ?
>
> or maybe linux/virt should be drivers/virt ?
See discussion for v2 of this patch. I suggested that drivers/firmware and virt/
as options, the counterarguments were that drivers/firmware is for passive
firmware as opposed to firmware that acts as a hypervisor, and that virt/ is
for the host side of hypervisors like kvm, not for guests.
The driver in here most closely resembles the xen dom0 model, where a
priviledged guest controls other guests, but unlike xen there is a single
driver file, so there is no need to have drivers/fsl-hv directory just
for this one file. We do have a number of other hypervisors that fit in the
same category, so they can be added here later.
Arnd
--
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