From: Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:02:23 -0600
> There is already an AF_IUCV for s390. This is a scarecrow and irrelevant to this discussion. And this is exactly why I asked that any arguments in this thread avoid talking about virtualization technology and why it's "special." This proposed patch here is asking to add new infrastructure for hypervisor facilities that will be _ADDED_ and for which we have complete control over. Whereas the S390 folks have to deal with existing infrastructure which is largely outside of their control. So if they implement access mechanisms for that, it's fine. I would be doing the same thing if I added a protocol socket layer for accessing the Niagara hypervisor virtualization channels. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
