Chris Wright wrote: > * Anthony Liguori (anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >> We've already gone down the road of trying to make standard paravirtual >> interfaces (via virtio). No one was sufficiently interested in >> collaborating. I don't see why other paravirtualizations are going to >> be much different. >> > > The point is to be able to support those interfaces. Presently a Linux guest > will test and find out which HV it's running on, and adapt. Another > guest will fail to enlighten itself, and perf will suffer...yadda, yadda. > Agreeing on CPUID does not get us close at all to having shared interfaces for paravirtualization. As I said in another note, there are more fundamental things that we differ on (like hypercall mechanism) that's going to make that challenging. We already are sharing code, when appropriate (see the Xen/KVM PV clock interface). Regards, Anthony Liguori > thanks, > -chris > _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
