Re: A proposal - binary

[Andrew Morton]

On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:04:59 +1000
Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 22:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:04:35 +1000
> > Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 21:18 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Everywhere in the kernel where we have multiple implementations we want
> > > to select at runtime, we use an ops struct.  Why should the choice of
> > > Xen/VMI/native/other be any different?
> > 
> > VMI is being proposed as an appropriate way to connect Linux to Xen.  If
> > that is true then no other glue is needed.
> 
> Sorry, this is wrong.

It's actually 100% correct.

>  VMI was proposed as the appropriate way to
> connect Linux to Xen, *and* native, *and* VMWare's hypervisors (and
> others).  This way one Linux binary can boot on all three, using
> different VMI blobs.

That also is correct.
 
> > > Yes, we could force native and Xen to work via VMI, but the result would
> > > be less clear, less maintainable, and gratuitously different from
> > > elsewhere in the kernel.
> > 
> > I suspect others would disagree with that.  We're at the stage of needing
> > to see code to settle this.
> 
> Wrong again.

I was referring to the VMI-for-Xen code.

>  We've *seen* the code for VMI, and fairly hairy.

I probably slept through that discussion - I don't recall that things were
that bad.   Do you recall the Subject: or date?


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/