Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Hrm, I was actually thinking that each of the VMI calls would be an > export (vmi_init, vmi_set_pxe, etc.). I know that you want the > hypervisor to drive the inlining but I that's sufficiently hairy (not > to mention, there's not AFAIK performance data yet to justify it) that > I think it ought to be left for VMI 2.0. That seems quite ok to me. It is a little weird to have the VMI calls be an export when some of them really can never be properly callable C functions, and you have to overwrite the native code, so the linking step is .. well this magic disassembly glue again. But it could be made to work, and we have discussed it before. > Multi-licensing is fine as long as one is GPL :-) I agree. But it sort of defeats the point of the GPL if you can optionally redistribute the code under the BSD license as well.
