Re: Paravirt KVM capabilities

Rusty Russell
2007-01-10T10:46:25Z

On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 10:47 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Rusty Russell <rusty-8n+1lVoiYb80n/F98K4Iww@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> regarding ABI: agreed that it's experimental right now and should stay
> so for some time, but i dont see a reason why the hypercall API that
> i've posted in the past few days couldnt be evolved in the way Linux
> syscalls evolve, by only adding to them. That doesnt really impact the
> flexibility of the virtualization subsystem. We could also possibly
> phase out older hypercalls, because the number of "applications" relying
> on it will be very low.

I suggest you continue adding hypercalls, and see where you end up. It
will be very interesting, particularly when you get to the paravirt_ops
lazy_mode hooks.

However, I believe it is worthwhile to have a mini hypervisor which
totals less than 5000 lines, including userspace utilities. I don't
believe it will change the world, but maybe some of the ideas will be
incorporated in "big serious" hypervisors. But meanwhile, it's fun!

Cheers!
Rusty.