Re: Xen & VMI?

[Gerd Hoffmann]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
>>> [using vmi rom]
>> IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests.
> 
> yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to 
> lkml ;)

Yep.  The fact that it is possible to do that doesn't imply that it is
the best solution.

Oh, and btw:  What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use
the vmi interface?

>>> the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_.
>> I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops 
>> reduces the QA effort.  You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test 
>> against.
> 
> yes, just like we have thousands of separate PC boards to support. But 
> as long as the basic ABI is the same, the QA effort on the Linux kernel 
> side is alot more focused.

xen and vmware are still two very different hypervisors from the memory
mangement point of view.  I doubt moving the abstraction line within the
linux kernel from paravirt_ops to vmi makes QA easier.

cheers,
  Gerd

-- 
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx>
-
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/