Re: A proposal - binary

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>]

David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > David Lang wrote:
> > > I'm not commenting on any of the specifics of the interface calls (I 
> > > trust you guys to make that be sane :-) I'm just responding the the 
> > > idea that the interface actually needs to be locked down to an ABI as 
> > > opposed to just source-level compatability.
> >
> > you are right that the interface to the HV should be stable. But those 
> > are going
> > to be specific to the HV, the paravirt_ops allows the kernel to 
> > smoothly deal
> > with having different HV's.
> > So in a way it's an API interface to allow the kernel to deal with 
> > multiple
> > different ABIs that exist today and will in the future.
>
> so if I understand this correctly we are saying that a kernel compiled 
> to run on hypervisor A would need to be recompiled to run on hypervisor 
> B, and recompiled again to run on hypervisor C, etc
no the actual implementation of the operation structure is dynamic and can be picked
at runtime, so you can compile a kernel for A,B *and* C and at runtime the kernel
picks the one you have
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/