RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure

["Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>]

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > 
> > > Yeah, see, the initial goal was to make it possible to use the KVM
> > > paravirtualizations on other hypervisors.  However, I don't think
this
> > > is really going to be possible in general so maybe it's better to
just
> > > use leaf 0.  I'll let others chime in before sending a new patch.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hm.  Obviously you can just define a signature for "kvm-compatible
> > hypercall interface" and make it common that way, but it gets tricky
if
> > the hypervisor supports multiple hypercall interfaces, including the
kvm
> > one.  Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something?
> > 
> 
> Yeah, that works with me.

To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need different
and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted
virtualization? That would not be good for Linux.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Anthony Liguori
> 
> >     J

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center
-
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/