Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0 of 3] create kvm_x86

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@us.ibm.com>]

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 15:43 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 22:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >      
> >> These cannot use the same method, since we need to support both vmx and
> >> svm in the same binary.  The arch specific members aren't the same size,
> >> nor do the symbols they use have the same visibility.
> >>     
> >
> > I have never understood this. Why on earth do you need to support VMX
> > and SVM in the same binary? For example, when would you overwrite
> > kvm_x86_ops after initialization? If you wouldn't, then why are you
> > using function pointers instead of the linker?
> >   
> 
> It's necessary for the distros to be able to ship both AMD and Intel 
> support in a single binary.  We aren't talking, in general, about a 
> single static binary but instead loadable modules.  There maybe some 
> cases where it's useful to support both in a static kernel binary.

I think the monolithic case is the one I overlooked. As long as
everything is a module, there should be no problem loading the
appropriate module for the host processor type. However, once you want
to support both processor types in a monolithic kernel, that's where you
need the function pointer flexibility.

> If you used the linker instead of function pointers, it would be 
> impossible to build a static kernel binary that supported both.  Plus, 
> depmod would get very confused because two modules would be providing 
> the same symbols.  It can be made to work, but it's kind of funky.
> 
> > PowerPC will also need to support multiple processor types, and so I
> > expect to have one kvm_arch structure for each. That also means struct
> > kvm_arch must be the *last* member in struct kvm, which is not how it is
> > shown above.
> >   
> 
> Instead of having a kvm.ko and a kvm-ppc-440.ko, you probably should 
> have a kvm.ko and a kvm-ppc.ko and then build the kvm-ppc.ko based on 
> the board.  You would never build multiple kvm-ppc-XXX.ko modules in the 
> same binary right?

I hope to have multiple kvm-ppc-XXX.ko modules loaded simultaneously to
support different guest types on the same host. I haven't yet figured
out what that interface should look like, but obviously linking is
preferable to function pointers where feasible.

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
kvm-ppc-devel mailing list
kvm-ppc-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-ppc-devel