Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:00:31 -0700 | From | Arjan van de Ven <> | Subject | Re: A proposal - binary |
| |
David Lang wrote: > On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> David Lang wrote: >>> I'm not commenting on any of the specifics of the interface calls (I >>> trust you guys to make that be sane :-) I'm just responding the the >>> idea that the interface actually needs to be locked down to an ABI as >>> opposed to just source-level compatability. >> >> you are right that the interface to the HV should be stable. But those >> are going >> to be specific to the HV, the paravirt_ops allows the kernel to >> smoothly deal >> with having different HV's. >> So in a way it's an API interface to allow the kernel to deal with >> multiple >> different ABIs that exist today and will in the future. > > so if I understand this correctly we are saying that a kernel compiled > to run on hypervisor A would need to be recompiled to run on hypervisor > B, and recompiled again to run on hypervisor C, etc > no the actual implementation of the operation structure is dynamic and can be picked at runtime, so you can compile a kernel for A,B *and* C and at runtime the kernel picks the one you have - 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/
| |