From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: VMWare standards Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 10:03:40 -0600 Message-ID: <43DF8A5C.9020506@us.ibm.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Jacob Gorm Hansen Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Jacob Gorm Hansen wrote: >hi, > >Sorry if this is old news, but it seems some of the larger players, >lead by VMWare, are trying to define a standard for paravirtualized >VMM's, see: > >http://www.vmware.com/standards/ > > VMware first brought this up last year during OLS. There has been patches floating to the osdl-virtualization list. >Should the Xen community be part of this effort? > > So far there hasn't been any real public discussion (AFAIK) about VMI. There certainly are merits to it but I'm not convinced that those merits justify major changes in Xen. Also, since they already support this in their product, I'm not sure how much the spec is up for discussion and there definitely are some key aspects that I'd like to see change (for instance, reliance on PCI bus emulation for device discovery). I'd be really interested to here what the Cambridge guys thought about it (or anyone else for that matter). Regards, Anthony Liguori >Jacob > >_______________________________________________ >Xen-devel mailing list >Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > >