Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932141AbWC1UWO (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:22:14 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932143AbWC1UWO (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:22:14 -0500 Received: from smtp110.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([209.191.85.220]:38027 "HELO smtp110.mail.mud.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S932141AbWC1UWN (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:22:13 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.au; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:X-Accept-Language:MIME-Version:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=nyy2zifg0tzxCC4Zex1BEeFGrJuM35+tdd8Y7DgYV9ZDqgUz+zDlKjAFcXQ46Kf5uytOA11sE+nz7XtDuzGCOAm5i649qEE/+0MFAF+V08fBMc7QJE1aDQ3oPovRESOKCc7DTFci/kN4zvYyFkhIfTtblkJ/tni1dqbZ0CfszNA= ; Message-ID: <44294BE4.2030409@yahoo.com.au> Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2006 00:44:52 +1000 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.12) Gecko/20051007 Debian/1.7.12-1 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Herbert Poetzl CC: Bill Davidsen , Linux Kernel ML Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtualization steps References: <44242A3F.1010307@sw.ru> <44242D4D.40702@yahoo.com.au> <1143228339.19152.91.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4428BB5C.3060803@tmr.com> <20060328085206.GA14089@MAIL.13thfloor.at> <4428FB29.8020402@yahoo.com.au> <20060328142639.GE14576@MAIL.13thfloor.at> In-Reply-To: <20060328142639.GE14576@MAIL.13thfloor.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1416 Lines: 34 Herbert Poetzl wrote: > On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 at 07:00:25PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: >>And if it is intrusive to the core kernel, then as always we have to >>try to evaluate the question "is it worth it"? How many people want it >>and what alternatives do they have (eg. maintaining seperate patches, >>using another approach), what are the costs, complexities, to other >>users and developers etc. > > > my words, but let me ask, what do you consider 'intrusive'? > I don't think I could give a complete answer... I guess it could be stated as the increase in the complexity of the rest of the code for someone who doesn't know anything about the virtualization implementation. Completely non intrusive is something like 2 extra function calls to/from generic code, changes to data structures are transparent (or have simple wrappers), and there is no shared locking or data with the rest of the kernel. And it goes up from there. Anyway I'm far from qualified... I just hope that with all the work you guys are putting in that you'll be able to justify it ;) -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com - 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/