Nakajima, Jun wrote:I don't see a particular problem with that. If the whole 0x4xxxxxxx range is reserved for hypervisor use, and existing hypervisors are already using 0x400000xx in hypervisor-specific ways, then it makes sense to start the generic stuff at 0x40001xxx (or some other offset). But without a few more implementations of the "generic" interface its all a bit moot (ie, where's your code? ;). This just seems a bit grotty. You're relying on the fact that you can overlay Xen's current use of 0x4000000x for the generic interface by freezing Xen's current use of 40000000-2. 0x40000000 becomes a more or less useless hypervisor-identification signature (useless because you need to assume that leaves 4000000x, x>2 implement the generic interface anyway, where x=1,2 are reserved for Xen (=hypervisor-specific) uses). In other words, what mechanism can a guest use to explicitly identify the existence of the generic interface? There needs to be a signature for that somewhere. J -
| Hiten Pandya | Re: up? (emacs docbook xml ide) |
| Greg KH | [GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24 |
| Roland Dreier | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
| Florian Schmidt | blacklist kernel boot option |
git: | |
| Linus Torvalds | Re: iptables very slow after commit 784544739a25c30637397ace5489eeb6e15d7d49 |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| David Miller | Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
