lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-05 00:15    [W:3.956 / U:0.356 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site