From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Xen & VMI? Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:11:30 +0100 Message-ID: <20070306171130.GA13403@elte.hu> References: <20070306081909.GA9331@elte.hu> <45ED2837.3020108@suse.de> <20070306085222.GA17002@elte.hu> <45ED3121.8090308@suse.de> <20070306093436.GA30239@elte.hu> <45ED3F29.6000705@suse.de> <20070306102658.GA7478@elte.hu> <45ED4AD8.6020504@suse.de> <20070306115937.GA25313@elte.hu> <45ED9678.5050907@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45ED9678.5050907@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , virtualization , Jan Beulich , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , Roland McGrath , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org * Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > The whole point of pv_ops is to allow the hypervisors interfaces to > evolve at their own pace without having to constrain the core kernel's > development unfortunately that's a self-serving oxymoron, contradicted by real life ;) Pretty much the only way to ensure a sane ABI is to do it like we do it with the Linux syscall ABI: _to have only one_ We do not let OpenOffice or Evolution have its own separate ABI to Linux so that they 'can evolve at their own pace'... We want them to cooperate and come up with a common ABI (or rather, we try to come up with the right syscalls ourselves), because divering, overlapping ABIs are a huge PITA. We do not unify their pointlessly diverging ABIs to within the kernel via say office_ops (while we could) because that's crappy on its face. Hypervisors arent in any way different, they just _think_ they are special because they are relatively new. But hey, i dont expect you to concede this point ;) Ingo