Re: ABI coupling to hypervisors via CONFIG_PARAVIRT

[Chris Wright]

* Ingo Molnar (mingo@xxxxxxx) wrote:
> i am worried whether /any/ future change to the upstream kernel's design 
> can be adopted via paravirt_ops, via the current VMI ABI. And by /any/ i 
> mean truly any. And whether that can be done is not a function of the 
> flexibility of paravirt_ops, it's a function of the flexibility of the 
> VMI ABI.

i'm not really one to argue on behalf of VMI, but i don't think it's as
dire make it out.  the VMI is client code of pv_ops, and as the kernel
changes that client code will simply have to adapt.  of course there are
theoretical limitations, but let's keep it grounded to practical reality.
the whole premise is evolution.  so throw out specific issues, and let's
adapt rather than fall deep into theoretical rhetoric.

thanks,
-chris
-
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/