[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface
    On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:59:44PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
    > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote:
    > > Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part
    > > of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I
    > > think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition
    > > of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap
    > > and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always
    > > issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should
    > > the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different
    > > model (or perhaps, migration?)
    > Well looks like there are still some major design issues to be ironed out.
    > What is proposed here is to make paravirt_ops a fake generic
    > API and then tunnel through it to vendor specific kernel mods.

    That was always its intention. It's not a direct interface to a hypervisor,
    but an somewhat abstracted interface to a "hypervisor driver"

    But you're right that there are currently still quite a lot of hooks
    being added. I plan to be much more strict on that in the future.

    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: 2007-02-17 14:53    [W:0.018 / U:85.372 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site