On Mon, 07.07.14 17:32, Thomas Blume (thomas.bl...@suse.com) wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > >>IMHO the main difference is the level of maturity. > >>z/VM is about 30 years old and has a huge amount of tools for everything you > >>could imagine. KVM is relatively new and under heavy development. > >>Furthermore, KVM is bound to the linux kernel, while z/VM is not. > >>Finally, KVM could theoretically run inside z/VM (thought it doesn't make > >>sense > >>running KVM on an already virtualized CPU) but not vice-versa. > >> > >>Kay, my colleague Ihno told me that you were working in the s390 department > >>at SUSE. > >>Any opinion about the use of distinguishing z/VM from KVM under s390? > > > >Well, obviously, we should distuingish kvm from some s390-specific > >virtualization. I was mostly referring to your original's patch > >distinction between "PR/SM" and "z/VM". What is that about? > > > > Ah, sorry for the misunderstanding. > PR/SM is the primary hypervisor that runs on the physical hardware, whereas > z/VM can only run on top of PR/SM, but not below. > Under PR/SM, the system resources can be partitioned first via LPAR and then > by running a z/VM on each LPAR. > However, apart from determining the level of virtualization, I don't see much > practical relevance in making a distinction.
Ah! OK! Then I think a patch that simply returns a generic "s390" id for all s390 + s390x systems would be a good idea. i.e. when we compile for s390/s390x we should just return that string unconditionally, without checking anything else. Please prepare a patch for that, and add the new type to the systemd.unit(5) man page, where ConditionVirtualization= is documented. Thanks, Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel