From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933211AbXCFKPH (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:15:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933215AbXCFKPH (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:15:07 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:32884 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933214AbXCFKPF (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:15:05 -0500 Message-ID: <45ED3F29.6000705@suse.de> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:15:05 +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: <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> <45ED3121.8090308@suse.de> <20070306093436.GA30239@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20070306093436.GA30239@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: > >> Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't >> use the vmi interface? > > cleanliness and performance: KVM doesnt need any artificial indirection. Xen doesn't need it either. > IMO the GPL-ed ROM portion of VMI was a bad idea to begin with. So why do you want xen use vmi then? > well, the VMI patches got into Linux with the claim that it's also > useful for Xen. So that claim was ... not actually true? As mentioned there was a proof-of-concept VMI ROM done by vmware. As far I know it translated the VMI ROM interface calls into xen hypercalls somehow, Zach probably has more details. So in the end you would still have two different hypervisor ABI's, the VMI ROM just hides that. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann