Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal

[Zachary Amsden]

Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> I agree with Zach here, the Xen hypervisor <-> kernel interface is
> not very nice.  This proposal seems like a step forward althogh it'll
> probably need to go through a few iterations.  Without and actually
> useable opensource hypevisor reference implementation it's totally
> unacceptable, though.
>   

Which is why our top priority is getting VMI Linux to run on Xen.  The 
churn rate on both ends has been very high, and we really wanted to 
release our patches with Xen support, but we also didn't want to wait 
some unknown number of weeks more to release them - and we're actually 
looking for volunteers to help with the port if anyone is interested.

What we are hoping for, in the end, is a Linux kernel with a clean 
virtualization interface, that is maintainable, does not slow hypervisor 
exploitation of new technologies, still offers all of the same 
performance advantages, works for the open source community, and allows 
hypervisor vendors of many creeds to benefit from cross-kernel binary 
compatibility.

Zach
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/