On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 17:04:59 +1000
Rusty Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 22:53 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 Aug 2006 15:04:35 +1000
> > Rusty Russell <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
