[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Use CPUID to communicate with the hypervisor.
Alok Kataria wrote:
>> Shouldn't you check the hypervisor signature here?
> Nope the whole idea of not checking the hypervisor signature is that we
> should keep this interface generic.

Unfortunately, given current evidence this is entirely unrealistic.

> So for instance right now, VMware has defined 40000010 leaf, if either
> kvm/xen think it could be useful they could just define that leaf to
> return nonzero value and the kernel will start using it for them.
> Likewise, if in future either kvm/xen come up with a need to define a
> new CPUID leaf they can define the semantics for that leaf, and the
> corresponding kernel side stuff. If VMware, think that this new leaf is
> useful, we can then support that leaf in our hypervisor or return zero
> otherwise.

This is only true if you can also except M$ and other hypervisor vendors
to stick to it. So far, hypervisor vendors have hardly shown any
inclination toward standardization.

Hence I really don't think it is sane.


 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-29 20:09    [W:0.087 / U:0.940 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site