Avi Kivity wrote: > Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >> Oh, and btw: What was the reason why kvm paravirtualization doesn't use >> the vmi interface? >> >> > > There actually was proof of concept code to do just that (by Anthony > Liguori). For Linux, I feel paravirt_ops is superior as we can extend > it if something is missing. Thanks. That is actually the point I want make: although it is *possible* to do that via VMI ROM, doing that using paravirt_ops is *better* (no matter whenever the hypervisor is xen or kvm). Thats why we actually have it. The very same discussion a couple months ago came to exactly that conclusion. cheers, Gerd -- Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel at suse.de>
