Chris Wright wrote:
* Andi Kleen ([email protected]) wrote:
The disassembly stuff indeed doesn't look like something
that belongs in the kernel.
Agree that. It should be done prior to kernel booting, invisible to the
kernel itself. I'm working on it, but there is still a lot to do.
Strongly agreed. The strict ABI requirements put forth here are not
in-line with Linux, IMO. I think source compatibility is the limit of
reasonable, and any ROM code be in-tree if something like this were to
be viable upstream.
Strongly disagree. Without an ABI, you don't have binary
compatibility. Without binary compatibility, you have no way to inline
any hypervisor code into the kernel. And this is key for performance.
The ROM code is being phased out.
Is it the strictness of the ABI that is the problem? I don't like
constraining the native register values any much either, but it was the
expedient thing to do. The ABI can be relaxed quite a bit, but it has
to be there.
The idea of in-tree ROM code doesn't make sense. The entire point of
this layer of code is that it is modular, and specific to the
hypervisor, not the kernel. Once you lift the shroud and combine the
two layers, you have lost all of the benefit that it was supposed to
provide.
Zach
-
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]
