Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946733AbXBQNvQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:51:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946739AbXBQNvQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:51:16 -0500 Received: from colin.muc.de ([193.149.48.1]:1427 "EHLO mail.muc.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946733AbXBQNvP (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 08:51:15 -0500 Date: 17 Feb 2007 14:51:13 +0100 Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:51:12 +0100 From: Andi Kleen To: Christoph Lameter Cc: Zachary Amsden , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Chris Wright , Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation for paravirt_ops interface Message-ID: <20070217135112.GA15102@muc.de> References: <20070216022449.739760547@goop.org> <45D61C74.2000601@vmware.com> <45D626BB.20007@vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1451 Lines: 28 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/