[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:0.039 / U:1.564 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site