lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC, PATCH 5/24] i386 Vmi code patching
Chris Wright wrote:
> * Andi Kleen (ak@suse.de) wrote:
>
>> The disassembly stuff indeed doesn't look like something
>> that belongs in the kernel.
>>

Agree that. It should be done prior to kernel booting, invisible to the
kernel itself. I'm working on it, but there is still a lot to do.

>
> Strongly agreed. The strict ABI requirements put forth here are not
> in-line with Linux, IMO. I think source compatibility is the limit of
> reasonable, and any ROM code be in-tree if something like this were to
> be viable upstream.
>

Strongly disagree. Without an ABI, you don't have binary
compatibility. Without binary compatibility, you have no way to inline
any hypervisor code into the kernel. And this is key for performance.
The ROM code is being phased out.

Is it the strictness of the ABI that is the problem? I don't like
constraining the native register values any much either, but it was the
expedient thing to do. The ABI can be relaxed quite a bit, but it has
to be there.

The idea of in-tree ROM code doesn't make sense. The entire point of
this layer of code is that it is modular, and specific to the
hypervisor, not the kernel. Once you lift the shroud and combine the
two layers, you have lost all of the benefit that it was supposed to
provide.

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: 2006-03-22 23:21    [W:0.141 / U:1.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site