From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Steve Ofsthun Subject: Re: [rfc] [patch] more 'long' in the hypervisor interface Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:04:13 -0400 Message-ID: <44A4404D.1000506@virtualiron.com> References: <1151528600.11374.75.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <20060628210948.GA11951@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <1151529702.11374.88.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <20060628213623.GO11588@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <1151531916.11374.98.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> <20060628230500.GP11588@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <44A3E5C3.30305@virtualiron.com> <1151604889.18933.61.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1151604889.18933.61.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Hollis Blanchard Cc: Chris Wright , xen-devel , xen-ppc-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hollis Blanchard wrote: > On Thu, 2006-06-29 at 10:37 -0400, Steve Ofsthun wrote: > >>For X86 there are probably two plans. For paravirtual guests, there is a >>strong desire to formalize the existing ABI. This will force the 32-bit >>and 64-bit ABIs to remain significantly different. Since the underlying >>hypervisors don't allow 32/64 mixed mode guests, there is little reason >>to reconcile the two ABIs. If the ABIs were identical today, you still >>couldn't run mixed mode guests. > > > Not sure I follow here. Identical ABIs would enable mixed mode guests, > even if the current implementation doesn't support that, right? So that > sounds like a good goal. Yes, identical ABIs would enable mixed mode guests. I was just trying to point out that there are other issues (page table sharing, etc) that would also need to be addressed before mixed mode PV guests would work. Steve -- Steve Ofsthun - Virtual Iron Software, Inc.