Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 4 Aug 2006 00:21:07 -0700 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: A proposal - binary |
| |
On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:04:59 +1000 Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 22:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:04:35 +1000 > > Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 21:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > Everywhere in the kernel where we have multiple implementations we want > > > to select at runtime, we use an ops struct. Why should the choice of > > > Xen/VMI/native/other be any different? > > > > VMI is being proposed as an appropriate way to connect Linux to Xen. If > > that is true then no other glue is needed. > > Sorry, this is wrong.
It's actually 100% correct.
> VMI was proposed as the appropriate way to > connect Linux to Xen, *and* native, *and* VMWare's hypervisors (and > others). This way one Linux binary can boot on all three, using > different VMI blobs.
That also is correct.
> > > Yes, we could force native and Xen to work via VMI, but the result would > > > be less clear, less maintainable, and gratuitously different from > > > elsewhere in the kernel. > > > > I suspect others would disagree with that. We're at the stage of needing > > to see code to settle this. > > Wrong again.
I was referring to the VMI-for-Xen code.
> We've *seen* the code for VMI, and fairly hairy.
I probably slept through that discussion - I don't recall that things were that bad. Do you recall the Subject: or date?
- 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/
| |