Re: meta-virtualization structure

["David Nyström" <david.nystrom@enea.com>]

On 12/05/2012 07:57 PM, Raymond Danks wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 05:02 AM, Prica, Mihai wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I wanted to include my work with meta-kvm into the new
>> layer(meta-virtualization) and I was thinking about the best method of
>> doing this.  The problem is there are different kernel configs
>> depending on the hypervisor and different values for the PACKAGECONFIG
>> in libvirt.
>>
>> One solution would be to move all the common pieces into a meta layer
>> and group the hypervisor configurations into a specific directory
>> (meta-kvm, meta-xen), all of them in meta-virtualization. Is there
>> another way ?
>>
>
> It seems to me the choice of hypervisor should be made in the distro
> configuration.  Can't this be handled with the addition of a HYPERVISOR
> definition there?

For kernel Kconfig I think this will be a good idea for config options 
which  cannot be set to =m, and are mutually exclusive.

Different values for PACKAGECONF in libvirt for xen/kvm is not 
neccesarily needed, unless your focus is to optimize binary package 
sizes. libvirt drivers for xen/kvm should not be mutually exclusive 
during build/packaging/runtime afaik.
Trying to use a hypervisor driver in runtime where the underlying tech. 
is not available will result in libvirt runtime errors.

Adding specific binary size optimizations flavours, such as xen-minimal 
et.c. of course also be done from DISTRO or local.conf.

>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Mihai
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> meta-virtualization mailing list
>> meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org
>> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> meta-virtualization mailing list
> meta-virtualization@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-virtualization
>