Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 03 Aug 2006 14:27:26 -0700 | From | Zachary Amsden <> | Subject | Re: A proposal - binary |
| |
Alan Cox wrote: > 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. >
Yes, the module issue is completely tangential. We would like to have the ability to load a hypervisor module at run-time, and this may be slightly nicer from a GPL point of view, by allowing us to publish a GPL module that interfaces to the kernel. But the Something layer really is more like firmware, and merely making a GPL'd module interface to it doesn't actually change the underlying legal / technical ramifications that Alan pointed out.
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/
| |