lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateThu, 30 Nov 2006 21:19:35 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-30 21:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2010