Ingo Molnar wrote:
quoted text
> btw., while we have everyone on the phone and talking ;) Technologically 
> it would save us a whole lot of trouble in Linux if 'external' 
> hypervisors could standardize around a single ABI - such as VMI. Is 
> there any deep reason why Xen couldnt use VMI to talk to Linux? I 
> suspect a range of VMI vectors could be set aside for Xen's dom0 (and 
> other) APIs that have no current VMI equivalent - if there's broad 
> agreement on the current 60+ base VMI vectors that center around basic 
> x86 CPU capabilities - which make up the largest portion of our 
> paravirtualization complexity. Pipe dream?

IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests.

quoted text
> there are already 5 major hypervisors we are going to support (in 
> alphabetical order):
> 
>  - KVM
>  - lguest
>  - Windows
>  - VMWare
>  - Xen
> 
> the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_.

I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops reduces
the QA effort.  You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test against.

cheers,
  Gerd

-- 
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de>
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/