[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912231508.25355.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:08:25 +0100
From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33
On Wednesday 23 December 2009 02:31:11 pm Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/23/2009 03:07 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >
> >> That is a very different situation from the AlacrityVM patches, which:
> >>
> >> - Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch is
> >> self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM
> >> intentionally (for better or worse).
> >>
> > Care to explain the 'breakage' and why KVM is more special in this regard
> > than other parts of the kernel (where we don't keep any such requirements)?
> >
>
> The device model is exposed to the guest. If you change it, the guest
> breaks.
Huh? Shouldn't non-vbus aware guests continue to work just fine?
> > I certainly missed the time when KVM became officially part of core ABI..
> >
>
> It's more akin to the hardware interface. We don't change the hardware
> underneath the guest.
As far as my limited understanding of things go vbus is completely opt-in
so it is like adding new real hardware to host. Where is the problem?
--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists