Nakajima, Jun wrote: > 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. > > The only way to have a single interface is if a central authority defines and documents that interface, and all hypervisor implementors agree not to implement extensions. Do you see that happening? -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. - 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/
- References:
- [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: Anthony Liguori <[email protected]>
- RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- From: "Nakajima, Jun" <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Prev by Date: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Next by Date: Re: sysfs change of input/event devices in 2.6.23rc breaks udev
- Previous by thread: RE: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Next by thread: Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] Refactor hypercall infrastructure
- Index(es):
 |