On 2016-08-17 18:58, Alexander Popov wrote: > On 17.08.2016 17:36, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2016-08-15 14:37, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>> On 15/08/2016 13:51, Alexander Popov wrote: >>>> It seems to me that the idea of an irq_domain for interrupts injected >>>> by a hypervisor is quite generic. >>> >>> True, but all of Xen, KVM and VMware use PCI devices for this. >> >> So does Jailhouse. We have to have the code anyway because we need to >> keep Linux alive after taking over control. Thus it is actually easier >> to reuse the same logic for para-virtualized domains (non-root cells). > > Hello, Jan! Yes, I see. > > I can only say that Xen, KVM, VMware and Jailhouse happily use hypercalls, > which are a valid interface between a hypervisor and its guests. > > Positive Technologies hypervisor called Gvandra (named after a big Caucasus > mountain) tries to use only the hypercalls and avoid PCI device emulation > to become slimmer. [Hmm, naming something that's supposed to be slim after something that's rather big...] BTW, is there a user of this interface already publicly available? You didn't reference anything in your posting. Generally, infrastructure extensions without in-tree users aren't well received (in the best case). Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RDA ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
