WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interfac

To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 0/24] VMI i386 Linux virtualization interface proposal
From: Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 10:59:54 -0800
Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christopher Li <chrisl@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wim Coekaerts <wim.coekaerts@xxxxxxxxxx>, virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Anne Holler <anne@xxxxxxxxxx>, Jyothy Reddy <jreddy@xxxxxxxxxx>, Kip Macy <kmacy@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Ky Srinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, Leendert van Doorn <leendert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 19:00:52 +0000
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <200603131256.51854.hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <200603131758.k2DHwQM7005618@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1142274398.3023.40.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4415BA4F.3040307@xxxxxxxxxx> <200603131256.51854.hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051201)
Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Monday 13 March 2006 12:30, Zachary Amsden wrote:
It is an advantage for everyone. It cuts support and certification costs for Linux distributors, software vendors, makes debugging and development easier, and gives hypervisors room to grow while maintaining binary compatibility with already released kernels.

It certainly is good for kernel developers and end-users.

However, it would be a foolish distributor or ISV who tests with one hypervisor and decides that covers all hypervisors which implement the same interface. So I'm not sure there's any advantage w.r.t. support and certification costs.

Your point is well noted. I'm not arguing that it would be smart to test with just one hypervisor (or worse, yet, test only on native hardware), and proudly declare your kernel virtualization compatible. There are some things you can do (instrument a torture test verification module in a native VMI ROM) to help with that test load.

But in the end, having a single binary reduces the complexity and work that goes into a certification, which does simplify the process - even if you still have to validate against the list of all supported vendors / hardware.

Zach

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>