* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Now it may be that you've got a change that's absolutely great for
> everyone, and the only blocker is that the FoobieVisor can't deal with
> it. OK, great, then you'd have a point.
yep. That's precisely my worry. And it doesnt have to be a 'great' thing
- just any random small change in the kernel that makes sense: what is
the likelyhood that it cannot be implemented, no matter what amount of
insight, paravirt_ops + hyper-ABI emulation hackery, for FoobieVisor,
because FoobieVisor messed up its ABI.
that likelyhood is a pure function of how FoobieVisor's hypercall ABI is
shaped. Wow! So can you guess where my fixation about not having too
many ABIs could possibly originate from? ;-)
Until today everyone on the hypervisor side of the argument pretended
that paravirt_ops solves all problems and acted stupid when i said an
ABI is an ABI is an ABI, and that "backwards compatibility" does have
some technological consequences. _Now_ at least i've got this minimal
admission that FoobieVisor _might_ break. Quite a breakthrough =B-)
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/
