Zachary Amsden wrote: > Basically, it just makes it easier on distributors and allows any old > kernel with paravirt-ops module support to run on any modern, new > hypervisor - that might not have even existed at the time the distro > was created.
Hey, isn't that what VMI's for? ;) I'd been thinking about the possibility of allowing the domain builder to provide a new paravirt_ops implementation to the booting kernel. It would be akin to a kernel module, in that its built for a specific kernel, but obviously run a lot earlier. But at this point I think the idea is too crack-ridden to be taken seriously. >> In the case of KVM, the paravirt_ops implementation is orthogonal to >> paravirt device drivers. A PV device driver can happily exist even >> if the paravirt_ops backend isn't activated. This is assuming that >> hypercalls aren't used btw. If hypercalls are desirable to use, then >> the paravirt_ops backend would have to EXPORT_GPL the hypercall >> interface. I imagine returning a specific errno would suffice. > > I'm mostly in agreement on that - although making dual hypercall / I/O > emulated drivers is a bit more work. Semi-paravirtualized real-hardware drivers seems like a difficult mishmash. I would hope we could deal with it with a virtio-like thing. J ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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