Ingo Molnar wrote: > btw., while we have everyone on the phone and talking ;) Technologically > it would save us a whole lot of trouble in Linux if 'external' > hypervisors could standardize around a single ABI - such as VMI. Is > there any deep reason why Xen couldnt use VMI to talk to Linux? I > suspect a range of VMI vectors could be set aside for Xen's dom0 (and > other) APIs that have no current VMI equivalent - if there's broad > agreement on the current 60+ base VMI vectors that center around basic > x86 CPU capabilities - which make up the largest portion of our > paravirtualization complexity. Pipe dream? IIRC there was some proof-of-concept at least for xen guests. > there are already 5 major hypervisors we are going to support (in > alphabetical order): > > - KVM > - lguest > - Windows > - VMWare > - Xen > > the QA matrix is gonna be a _mess_. I fail to see how xen-via-vmirom instead of xen-via-paravirt_ops reduces the QA effort. You still have 5 Hypervisors you have to test against. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at suse.de>
