Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:19:35 +0100 | | From | Ingo Molnar <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/38] KVM: Create kvm-intel.ko module |
| |
* Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> wrote:
> It's a fat, complex, presumably arch-specific, presumably > frequently-changing API. So whatever we do will be unpleasant - > that's unavoidable in this case, I suspect. > > (hmm, the interface isn't versioned at present - should it be?) > > Maybe, perhaps, one day it _should_ be a syscall API. But right now > if we did that it would become a versioned syscall API with obsolete > slots and various other warts.
yeah, very much agreed. For example the paravirtualization/accelerator downcalls/upcalls in KVM dont exist yet, so there's little to standardize. Once we see it from lhype & KVM how these things look like we can design a sane kernel interface around it. But i'm against the notion that KVM is 'just' a device. It's not, and it /will/ grow into something fundamental.
> I get the feeling we'd be best off if we were to revisit this in a > year or so.
yeah. I'd suggest merging it as-is into v2.6.20. In a year we'll have some real APIs to think about.
Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |