On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 04:25:03PM +0100, Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult wrote: > On 03.12.20 00:22, Wei Liu wrote: > > Hi, > > > I don't follow. Do you mean reusing /dev/kvm but with a different set of > > APIs underneath? I don't think that will work. > > My idea was using the same uapi for both hypervisors, so that we can use > the same userlands for both. > > Are the semantis so different that we can't provide the same API ?
We can provide some similar APIs for ease of porting, but can't provide 1:1 mappings. By definition KVM and MSHV are two different things. There is no goal to make one ABI / API compatible with the other. > > > In any case, the first version of /dev/mshv was posted a few days ago > > [0]. While we've chosen to follow closely KVM's model, Microsoft > > Hypervisor has its own APIs. > > I have to admit, I don't know much about hyperv - what are the main > differences (from userland perspective) between hyperv and kvm ? > They have different architecture and hence different ways to deal with things. The difference will inevitably make its way to userland. Without going into all the details, you can have a look how Xen and KVM differ architecturally. That will give you a pretty good idea on the differences. Wei. > > --mtx > > -- > --- > Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert > werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren > GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu. > --- > Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult > Free software and Linux embedded engineering > i...@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
