On 5/22/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eric Van Hensbergen wrote: > > On 5/22/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>> I didn't think we were talking about the general case, I thought we > >>> were discussing the PV case. > >>> > >>> > >> In case of KVM no one is speaking of pure PV. > >> > >> > > > > Why not? It seems worthwhile to come up with something that can cover > > the whole spectrum instead of having different hypervisors (and > > interfaces). > > > > Because in a few years, almost everyone will have hardware capable of > doing full virtualization so why bother with pure PV.
I don't know, we could shoot for a clean, simple interface that makes PV easy to integrate into any kernel. Pick a common underlying abstraction for all resources. Define a simple, efficient memory channel for the comms. Lay 9p over it. Then take it from there for each device. I agree, from the way (e.g.) the Xen devices work, PV is a pain. But it need not be that way. I think from the Plan 9 side we're happy to run full PV. But we're 0% of the world, so that may bias our importance a bit :-) thanks ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
