On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 01:59:44PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote: > > > Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part > > of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I > > think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition > > of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap > > and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always > > issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should > > the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different > > model (or perhaps, migration?) > > Well looks like there are still some major design issues to be ironed out. > What is proposed here is to make paravirt_ops a fake generic > API and then tunnel through it to vendor specific kernel mods. That was always its intention. It's not a direct interface to a hypervisor, but an somewhat abstracted interface to a "hypervisor driver" But you're right that there are currently still quite a lot of hooks being added. I plan to be much more strict on that in the future. -Andi
