On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 04:45:07PM +0100, Gianluca Sforna wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:20 PM, Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > what do you exactly mean with "too ugly to live"? Is it that fragile bad > > > code or does it just not fit the kernel styling guidelines? > > > > In terms of accessing hardware virt capabilities, there is already a generic > > kernel module to expose hardware virtualization driver to userspace apps - it > > is called KVM. If virtualbox needs access to hardware virt them it should > > use this existing driver. > > > > > > > And if the quality is just not good enough to get into fedora, what > > > efforts would be needed to fix that? > > > > It should use the KVM module driver, and if the current functionality in > > KVM is not sufficient then VirtualBox should work with upstream to address > > the limitations. Having multiple kernel modules for virtualization does > > not help anyone. > > Are Xen guys aware of this? Xen doesn't use use kernel modules to access hardware virtualization. The hypervisor itself is the first thing to boot & owns all hardware directly and thus doesn't have to ask the kernel to get access to hardware virt capabilities. So this question is irrelevant. Dan. -- |=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=| |=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=| |=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=| |=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
