Re: A proposal - binary

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>> David Lang wrote:
>>> I'm not commenting on any of the specifics of the interface calls (I 
>>> trust you guys to make that be sane :-) I'm just responding the the 
>>> idea that the interface actually needs to be locked down to an ABI as 
>>> opposed to just source-level compatability.
>>
>> you are right that the interface to the HV should be stable. But those 
>> are going
>> to be specific to the HV, the paravirt_ops allows the kernel to 
>> smoothly deal
>> with having different HV's.
>> So in a way it's an API interface to allow the kernel to deal with 
>> multiple
>> different ABIs that exist today and will in the future.
> 
> so if I understand this correctly we are saying that a kernel compiled 
> to run on hypervisor A would need to be recompiled to run on hypervisor 
> B, and recompiled again to run on hypervisor C, etc
> 
no the actual implementation of the operation structure is dynamic and can be picked
at runtime, so you can compile a kernel for A,B *and* C and at runtime the kernel
picks the one you have