* Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's a fat, complex, presumably arch-specific, presumably
> frequently-changing API. So whatever we do will be unpleasant -
> that's unavoidable in this case, I suspect.
>
> (hmm, the interface isn't versioned at present - should it be?)
>
> Maybe, perhaps, one day it _should_ be a syscall API. But right now
> if we did that it would become a versioned syscall API with obsolete
> slots and various other warts.
yeah, very much agreed. For example the paravirtualization/accelerator
downcalls/upcalls in KVM dont exist yet, so there's little to
standardize. Once we see it from lhype & KVM how these things look like
we can design a sane kernel interface around it. But i'm against the
notion that KVM is 'just' a device. It's not, and it /will/ grow into
something fundamental.
> I get the feeling we'd be best off if we were to revisit this in a
> year or so.
yeah. I'd suggest merging it as-is into v2.6.20. In a year we'll have
some real APIs to think about.
Ingo
-
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]
