Messages in this thread | | | Date | 17 Feb 2007 14:51:13 +0100 | Date | Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:51:12 +0100 | From | Andi Kleen <> | Subject | Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface |
| |
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:59:44PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part > > of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I > > think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition > > of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap > > and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always > > issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should > > the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different > > model (or perhaps, migration?) > > Well looks like there are still some major design issues to be ironed out. > What is proposed here is to make paravirt_ops a fake generic > API and then tunnel through it to vendor specific kernel mods.
That was always its intention. It's not a direct interface to a hypervisor, but an somewhat abstracted interface to a "hypervisor driver"
But you're right that there are currently still quite a lot of hooks being added. I plan to be much more strict on that in the future.
-Andi - 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/
| |