From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Xen & VMI? Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:13:17 -0800 Message-ID: <45EDD96D.1030108@goop.org> References: <45ED82D9.6050204@codemonkey.ws> <8FFF7E42E93CC646B632AB40643802A80229779B@scsmsx412.amr.corp.intel.com> <20070306203712.GC21736@elte.hu> <45EDD6F1.7080100@goop.org> <20070306211105.GD26348@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070306211105.GD26348@elte.hu> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.osdl.org To: Ingo Molnar Cc: virtualization , Jan Beulich , Anthony Liguori , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Ingo Molnar wrote: > so trying to argue as if there was no ABI imposed on Linux by hiding the = > Xen ABI behind paravirt_ops, and whistling into the air as if nothing = > happened is misguided at best. How is the situation even slightly different with a unified hypervisor ABI? J