From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add I/O hypercalls for i386 paravirt Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 15:34:56 +1000 Message-ID: <1187847296.16369.19.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <46CBC842.4070100@vmware.com> <20070822102217.GE2642@bingen.suse.de> <46CC68D9.5060200@vmware.com> <20070822175918.GB8058@bingen.suse.de> <46CC6D63.2010204@vmware.com> <20070822194632.GD8058@bingen.suse.de> <46CC9FF2.3040406@vmware.com> <20070822220451.GJ8058@bingen.suse.de> <20070822222528.7c58f1e9@the-village.bc.nu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070822222528.7c58f1e9@the-village.bc.nu> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Andi Kleen , Zachary Amsden , Andrew Morton , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Virtualization Mailing List , Chris Wright , Avi Kivity , Jeremy Fitzhardinge List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Wed, 2007-08-22 at 22:25 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > I still think it's preferable to change some drivers than everybody. > > > > AFAIK BusLogic as real hardware is pretty much dead anyways, > > so you're probably the only primary user of it anyways. > > Go wild on it! > > I don't believe anyone is materially maintaining the buslogic driver and > in time its going to break completely. > > > Well that might be. I just think it would be a mistake > > to design paravirt_ops based on someone's short term release engineering > > considerations. > > Agreed, especially as an interface where each in or out traps into the > hypervisor is broken even for the model of virtualising hardware. I'd really like lguest guests not to do ins and outs, but that's likely to be more invasive a change than this. We do it to find the PCI bus IIRC, and a couple of other early probe bits. It's just unfortunate that it's the one place lguest has to emulate because of lack of paravirt_ops coverage. Rusty.