From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: Xen & VMI? Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 21:30:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20070306203018.GA21736@elte.hu> 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> <20070306194612.GG19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070306194612.GG19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Chris Wright Cc: virtualization , Roland McGrath , Linus Torvalds , Andrew Morton , Jan Beulich , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org * Chris Wright wrote: > What are you driving at? You seem to be arguing that abstractions are = > bad unless done via ABI's. [...] i'm still arguing the same: that doing the same thing via overlapping, = conflicting, redundant ABIs is crazy and contrary to the basic interests = of Linux. It's like having 5 different, parallel variants of sys_open(), = interfaced via a convoluted open_ops. having data ABI coupling is one thing (filesystems, network formats, = etc.). But having a 5-way function ABI coupling between system software = running on the /same piece of hardware/, doing the same thing in essence = is just madness in my book. Ingo