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:
> * Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> wrote:
>
>>> [using vmi rom]
>> IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests.
>
> yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to
> lkml ;)

Yep. The fact that it is possible to do that doesn't imply that it is
the best solution.

Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use
the vmi interface?

>>> 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.
>
> yes, just like we have thousands of separate PC boards to support. But
> as long as the basic ABI is the same, the QA effort on the Linux kernel
> side is alot more focused.

xen and vmware are still two very different hypervisors from the memory
mangement point of view. I doubt moving the abstraction line within the
linux kernel from paravirt_ops to vmi makes QA easier.

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 10:19    [W:0.034 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site