> > We intend to move to a common arch-independent kernel interface and > > userspace with kvm. > The address space and vcpu management are rather different from kvm's, > however your approach is better and we'll want to move kvm in your > direction rather than the other way round (specifically the tight vcpu > <-> task coupling; mmu is more diffcult).
How do we continue from here? Adding new architectures to the ioctl based approach or change kvm to a syscall interface? Also IMHO it would be better to move the code away from drivers and to kernel/ or virt/ with arch dependent backends. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
