lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Monday 13 March 2006 12:30, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>
>> It is an advantage for everyone. It cuts support and certification
>> costs for Linux distributors, software vendors, makes debugging and
>> development easier, and gives hypervisors room to grow while maintaining
>> binary compatibility with already released kernels.
>>
>
> It certainly is good for kernel developers and end-users.
>
> However, it would be a foolish distributor or ISV who tests with one
> hypervisor and decides that covers all hypervisors which implement the same
> interface. So I'm not sure there's any advantage w.r.t. support and
> certification costs.
>

Your point is well noted. I'm not arguing that it would be smart to
test with just one hypervisor (or worse, yet, test only on native
hardware), and proudly declare your kernel virtualization compatible.
There are some things you can do (instrument a torture test verification
module in a native VMI ROM) to help with that test load.

But in the end, having a single binary reduces the complexity and work
that goes into a certification, which does simplify the process - even
if you still have to validate against the list of all supported vendors
/ hardware.

Zach
-
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: 2006-03-13 20:02    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans