[lkml]   [2006]   [Aug]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: A proposal - binary
    * Greg KH ( wrote:
    > > Who said that? Please smack them on the head with a broom. We are all
    > > actively working on implementing Rusty's paravirt-ops proposal. It
    > > makes the API vs ABI discussion moot, as it allow for both.
    > So everyone is still skirting the issue, oh great :)

    No, we are working closely together on Rusty's paravirt ops proposal.
    Given the number of questions I've fielded in the last 24 hrs, I really
    don't think people understand this.

    We are actively developing paravirt ops, we have a patch series that
    begins to implement it (although it's still in it's nascent stage). If
    anybody is interested in our work it is done in public. The working
    tree is here: (mercurial patchqueue,
    just be forewarned that it's still quite early to be playing with it,
    doesn't do much yet). We are using the virtualization mailing list for
    discussions if
    you are interested.

    Zach (please correct me if I'm wrong here), is working on plugging the
    VMI into the paravirt_ops interface. So his discussion of binary
    interface issues is as a consumer of the paravirt_ops interface.

    So, in case it's not clear, we are all working together to get
    paravirt_ops upstream. My personal intention is to do everything I can
    to help get things in shape to queue for 2.6.19 inclusion, and having
    confusion over our direction does not help with that agressive timeline.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2006-08-04 20:37    [W:0.020 / U:52.856 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site