Re: A proposal - binary

From: Arjan van de Ven
Date: Fri Aug 04 2006 - 18:10:54 EST

David Lang wrote:
On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

David Lang wrote:
I'm not commenting on any of the specifics of the interface calls (I trust you guys to make that be sane :-) I'm just responding the the idea that the interface actually needs to be locked down to an ABI as opposed to just source-level compatability.

you are right that the interface to the HV should be stable. But those are going
to be specific to the HV, the paravirt_ops allows the kernel to smoothly deal
with having different HV's.
So in a way it's an API interface to allow the kernel to deal with multiple
different ABIs that exist today and will in the future.

so if I understand this correctly we are saying that a kernel compiled to run on hypervisor A would need to be recompiled to run on hypervisor B, and recompiled again to run on hypervisor C, etc

no the actual implementation of the operation structure is dynamic and can be picked
at runtime, so you can compile a kernel for A,B *and* C and at runtime the kernel
picks the one you have
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