Ingo Molnar wrote: >>> 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. >> > > yes, just like we have thousands of separate PC boards to support. But > as long as the basic ABI is the same, the QA effort on the Linux kernel > side is alot more focused. (Distros still have 18446744073709551616 > total combinations to QA, and have to make an educated guess to reduce > that to a more manageable number.) > But hardware PC boards don't do anything as remotely complicate as changing the semantics required for correctness in you MMU implementation. There might be some weird MTRR and caching things, which are a property of the architecture, and which all modern boards have in common. You don't have completely diverse implementation properties like shadow vs direct vs native page tables. Or hardware virtualization vs direct CPL raised execution. You simply can't test this diversity by making an educated guess, because in this case, something will always be omitted. The test matrix has to be raised, and if that is a problem, the burden of proper testing shifted onto the manufacturers, just as you would with some new PC board or new architecture that wanted to be Linux friendly but was radically different in some way. Zach
