On 10/17/2011 12:42 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 10/17/2011 12:41 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> > Even not counting that hyper-v support should IMHO not be in >> > KVM-specific code, I still think this shouldn't remove KVM leaves >> > completely but rather move them to 0x40000100. The KVM >> > paravirtualization code then can similarly probe with 0x100 stride up >> > to 0x40001000. This is what was done for Xen, and it allows to >> enable >> > enlightenments independent of whether the guest is Linux or Windows. >> > >> > However, let's get a third opinion---Avi, what do you think? >> >> I agree with you, especially as this already works for Xen. >> >> Note it doesn't completely solve the issue (so we have two interfaces, >> which is the preferred one?), but it's better than nothing. > > Windows doesn't look beyond 0x40000000, so Hyper-V stays there and KVM > has to shift. So MS solved that part for us. :)
I mean, suppose Linux finds hyper-v at 000 and kvm at 100. Is it kvm impersonating hyper-v, or a future hyper-v impersonating kvm, or something else (TAINT_CRAP?) impersonating both? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
