On Wednesday 23 December 2009 02:31:11 pm Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/23/2009 03:07 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > >> That is a very different situation from the AlacrityVM patches, which: > >> > >> - Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch is > >> self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM > >> intentionally (for better or worse). > >> > > Care to explain the 'breakage' and why KVM is more special in this regard > > than other parts of the kernel (where we don't keep any such requirements)? > > > > The device model is exposed to the guest. If you change it, the guest > breaks. Huh? Shouldn't non-vbus aware guests continue to work just fine? > > I certainly missed the time when KVM became officially part of core ABI.. > > > > It's more akin to the hardware interface. We don't change the hardware > underneath the guest. As far as my limited understanding of things go vbus is completely opt-in so it is like adding new real hardware to host. Where is the problem? -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz -- 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
