Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
quoted text
>>
>> The big difference here is that you could create a VM at runtime (by 
>> combining the existing interfaces) that did not exist before (or was 
>> not tested before). For example, a hypervisor could show hyper-v, 
>> osx-v (if any), linux-v, etc., and a guest could create a VM with 
>> hyper-v MMU, osx-v interrupt handling, Linux-v timer, etc. And such 
>> combinations/variations can grow exponentially.
> 
> That would be crazy.
> 

Not necessarily, although the example above is extreme.  Redundant 
interfaces is the norm in an evolving platform.

quoted text
>> Or are you suggesting that multiple interfaces be _available_ to 
>> guests at runtime but the guest chooses one of them?
> 
> Right, that's what I've been suggesting.    I think hypervisors should 
> be able to offer multiple ABIs to guests, but a guest has to commit to 
> using one exclusively (ie, once they start to use one then the others 
> turn themselves off, kill the domain, etc).

Not inherently.  Of course, there may be interfaces which are interently 
or by policy mutually exclusive, but a hypervisor should only export the 
interfaces it wants a guest to be able to use.

This is particularly so with CPUID, which is a *data export* interface, 
it doesn't perform any action.

	-hpa
--
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/