lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Mar]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Xen & VMI?
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> btw., while we have everyone on the phone and talking ;) Technologically
> it would save us a whole lot of trouble in Linux if 'external'
> hypervisors could standardize around a single ABI - such as VMI. Is
> there any deep reason why Xen couldnt use VMI to talk to Linux? I
> suspect a range of VMI vectors could be set aside for Xen's dom0 (and
> other) APIs that have no current VMI equivalent - if there's broad
> agreement on the current 60+ base VMI vectors that center around basic
> x86 CPU capabilities - which make up the largest portion of our
> paravirtualization complexity. Pipe dream?

IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests.

> there are already 5 major hypervisors we are going to support (in
> alphabetical order):
>
> - KVM
> - lguest
> - Windows
> - VMWare
> - Xen
>
> the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_.

I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops reduces
the QA effort. You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test against.

cheers,
Gerd

--
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de>
-
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: 2007-03-06 09:39    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans