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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
