* Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So please
>
> - point out things that are badly done. [...]
the thing badly done is fundamental and it trumps any other small
technological detail complaint i have, because it affects the
development and maintainance model: to promise backwards compatibility
to 4-5 different hypervisors, using separate ABIs for each. /One/ such
ABI would be complex enough to maintain IMO.
( if there is no backwards compatibility promise then i have zero
complaints: then paravirt_ops + the hypercall just becomes another API
internal to Linux that we can improve at will. But that is not
realistic: if we provide CONFIG_VMI today, people will expect to have
CONFIG_VMI in the future too. )
as i said in the very, very first email about this topic: /one/ new ABI
towards hypervisors should be introduced step by step, and via concensus
across hypervisors. We should treat the hypercall ABI very similar to
the system call ABI: the system call ABI is largely based on a concensus
between applications.
[ i think apic_write() granularity is bad too - but that is a small
technical issue, dwarved by the ABI issues that impact the development
model IMO. ]
Ingo
-
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/
