From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933220AbXCFKXM (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:23:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S933217AbXCFKXM (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:23:12 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:45894 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933220AbXCFKXL (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:23:11 -0500 Message-ID: <45ED4117.40701@suse.de> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 11:23:19 +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: Avi Kivity Cc: Ingo Molnar , 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> <45ED3121.8090308@suse.de> <45ED3A8D.9090906@argo.co.il> In-Reply-To: <45ED3A8D.9090906@argo.co.il> 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 Avi Kivity wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use >> the vmi interface? >> >> > > There actually was proof of concept code to do just that (by Anthony > Liguori). For Linux, I feel paravirt_ops is superior as we can extend > it if something is missing. Thanks. That is actually the point I want make: although it is *possible* to do that via VMI ROM, doing that using paravirt_ops is *better* (no matter whenever the hypervisor is xen or kvm). Thats why we actually have it. The very same discussion a couple months ago came to exactly that conclusion. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann