From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [RFC] VMI for Xen? Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:10:12 -0600 Message-ID: <4419FE64.3010309@us.ibm.com> References: <20060316235524.GB7814@sorel.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060316235524.GB7814@sorel.sous-sol.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Chris Wright Cc: Ian Pratt , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Chris Wright wrote: > * Ian Pratt (m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk) wrote: > >>> Just some food for thought, I did a simple analysis of the >>> size of Xen Linux patches verses the VMI patches. To make >>> things more fair, I removed everything from the XenoLinux >>> port accept for the i386 xen subarch (so no drivers and no >>> support for other architectures). >>> >> Your analysis is still taking all the patches to make dom0 functionality >> work, which accounts for a lot of changes and is totally outside of the >> scope of VMI. >> >> We've been working with a bunch of RH/Novell folks to create a stripped >> down domU-only Xen patch that would be a fairer comparison. >> > > Here's a really imprecise view into that. Keeping with Anthony's > metrics: > > 88 files changed, 7637 insertions(+), 436 deletions(-) > Interesting. > That's near meaningless, as it's not something that would compile and > run, but gives you a scope of the size of the changes for domU only > (shadow mode), no Xen drivers, etc.. > Okay, but that is on par with the amount of changes present in VMI. That's a really interesting data point. Thanks, Anthony Liguori > thanks, > -chris >