Re: A proposal - binary

From: Chris Wright
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 14:32:45 EST

* Greg KH (greg@xxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > Who said that? Please smack them on the head with a broom. We are all
> > actively working on implementing Rusty's paravirt-ops proposal. It
> > makes the API vs ABI discussion moot, as it allow for both.
> So everyone is still skirting the issue, oh great :)

No, we are working closely together on Rusty's paravirt ops proposal.
Given the number of questions I've fielded in the last 24 hrs, I really
don't think people understand this.

We are actively developing paravirt ops, we have a patch series that
begins to implement it (although it's still in it's nascent stage). If
anybody is interested in our work it is done in public. The working
tree is here: (mercurial patchqueue,
just be forewarned that it's still quite early to be playing with it,
doesn't do much yet). We are using the virtualization mailing list for
discussions if
you are interested.

Zach (please correct me if I'm wrong here), is working on plugging the
VMI into the paravirt_ops interface. So his discussion of binary
interface issues is as a consumer of the paravirt_ops interface.

So, in case it's not clear, we are all working together to get
paravirt_ops upstream. My personal intention is to do everything I can
to help get things in shape to queue for 2.6.19 inclusion, and having
confusion over our direction does not help with that agressive timeline.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at