Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: A proposal - binary | From | Alan Cox <> | Date | Thu, 03 Aug 2006 22:12:46 +0100 |
| |
Ar Iau, 2006-08-03 am 22:29 +0200, ysgrifennodd Willy Tarreau: > I think that the issue Zach tried to cover is the current inability to > keep the same binary module across multiple kernel versions. That's why > he compared modules<->kernel to ELF<->glibc. In that sense, he's right.
I think thats why he's wrong.
The interface for a hypedvisor is
Kernel -> Something -> Hypedvisor
The kernel->something interface can change randomly by day of week, who cares. A better analogy would be a device driver - we recompile device drivers each kernel variant, which change their internal interfaces, we redesign their locking but we don't have to change the hardware.
Ditto talking to the hypedvisor. The ABI is the hypedvisor syscall/trap interface not the kernel module interface. As such insmod is just fine.
Alan
- 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/
| |