From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:55:36 -0800 Message-ID: <45DC95A8.1090907@vmware.com> References: <20070216022449.739760547@goop.org> <45D61C74.2000601@vmware.com> <45D626BB.20007@vmware.com> <20070217135112.GA15102@muc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Andi Kleen , Rusty Russell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Sat, 17 Feb 2007, Andi Kleen wrote: > > >> That was always its intention. It's not a direct interface to a hypervisor, >> but an somewhat abstracted interface to a "hypervisor driver" >> > > I thought that hypervisor driver was some binary blob that can be directly > accessed via paravirt_ops? > There are no more binary blobs being used by paravirt-ops hypervisors. I prefer the term "open hypercode layer". >> But you're right that there are currently still quite a lot of hooks >> being added. I plan to be much more strict on that in the future. >> > > And it seems that the hooks are not generic but bound to a particular > hypervisor. Should the Xen specific stuff not be in the binary blob? > Xen doesn't use a hypercode layer, and there is no way to do what they need to do without hooks in the kernel. Zach