From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1031329AbWK3UTv (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:19:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1031341AbWK3UTv (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:19:51 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:15077 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1031329AbWK3UTu (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:19:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 21:19:35 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andrew Morton Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Avi Kivity , kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/38] KVM: Create kvm-intel.ko module Message-ID: <20061130201935.GA14696@elte.hu> References: <456AD5C6.1090406@qumranet.com> <20061127121136.DC69A25015E@cleopatra.q> <20061127123606.GA11825@elte.hu> <20061130142435.GA13372@infradead.org> <20061130154425.GB28507@elte.hu> <20061130115957.c3761331.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061130115957.c3761331.akpm@osdl.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.5 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 1.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Andrew Morton wrote: > It's a fat, complex, presumably arch-specific, presumably > frequently-changing API. So whatever we do will be unpleasant - > that's unavoidable in this case, I suspect. > > (hmm, the interface isn't versioned at present - should it be?) > > Maybe, perhaps, one day it _should_ be a syscall API. But right now > if we did that it would become a versioned syscall API with obsolete > slots and various other warts. yeah, very much agreed. For example the paravirtualization/accelerator downcalls/upcalls in KVM dont exist yet, so there's little to standardize. Once we see it from lhype & KVM how these things look like we can design a sane kernel interface around it. But i'm against the notion that KVM is 'just' a device. It's not, and it /will/ grow into something fundamental. > I get the feeling we'd be best off if we were to revisit this in a > year or so. yeah. I'd suggest merging it as-is into v2.6.20. In a year we'll have some real APIs to think about. Ingo