From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933153AbXCFJPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 04:15:08 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933174AbXCFJPI (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 04:15:08 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:40510 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933153AbXCFJPG (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 04:15:06 -0500 Message-ID: <45ED3121.8090308@suse.de> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 10:15:13 +0100 From: Gerd Hoffmann Organization: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?SUSE_LINUX_Products_GmbH=2C_GF=3A_?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_Rex=2C_HRB_16746_=28AG_N=FCrnberg=29?= User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20060911) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , virtualization , Jan Beulich , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Roland McGrath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Xen & VMI? References: <20070305120631.GA14105@elte.hu> <1173101297.26165.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1173142644.4644.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45ECBDDC.8080708@vmware.com> <45ECC076.9050209@goop.org> <45ECC91D.1020809@vmware.com> <45ECC9B6.1060209@goop.org> <20070306081909.GA9331@elte.hu> <45ED2837.3020108@suse.de> <20070306085222.GA17002@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070306085222.GA17002@elte.hu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > >>> [using vmi rom] >> IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests. > > yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to > lkml ;) Yep. The fact that it is possible to do that doesn't imply that it is the best solution. Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use the vmi interface? >>> the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_. >> I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops >> reduces the QA effort. You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test >> against. > > yes, just like we have thousands of separate PC boards to support. But > as long as the basic ABI is the same, the QA effort on the Linux kernel > side is alot more focused. xen and vmware are still two very different hypervisors from the memory mangement point of view. I doubt moving the abstraction line within the linux kernel from paravirt_ops to vmi makes QA easier. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann