From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: todo Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:03:06 -0700 Message-ID: <45FB687A.4090506@goop.org> References: <20070317020011.GS10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <45FB5707.3010809@goop.org> <20070317033452.GU10574@sequoia.sous-sol.org> <45FB67E1.8040104@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <45FB67E1.8040104@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Cc: Chris Wright , Virtualization Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> It also has one >> negative side-effect, which is promoting external module code that links >> with the kernel. IOW, there's much less incentive to get code merged >> if it's just a matter of linking. >> = > > It wouldn't be something we'd promote by making it easy to bind > out-of-tree code to the interface. And it would still be a > kernel-version-specific ABI; no guarantees of stability. BTW, my intention is definitely that all the pv-ops implementations are linked into the kernel at build time; its just the binding references get updated at boot time, and the unused code pages can be recycled. = But they're all part of the same kernel image. J