At 13:47 +0100 on 18 Jun (1245332839), John Levon wrote:
> Well, given we're agreed that we should have a document of /some/
> specification, why not qemu's? Presumably we need to document the state
> that qemu /does/ save for HVM guests anyway, so why not the whole thing?
If we have our own format (using ELF or indeed any other container
format to break it into typed sections) then we get to use our own
typespace rather than asking for a slice of theirs. :)
More seriously, I don't think it gets us enough real advantage to
comensate for its disadvantages: it's an ad-hoc, evolved, implicitly
defined format, which is the sort of thing we're trying to avoid; It
encourages further aggregation of unrelated dom0 tools into qemu (I
understand that some people see that as a good thing, but I don't); and
it's tied down to the needs and history of qemu, which are not entirely
aligned with Xen's.
Anyway, I think we've probably made our positions clear; Gianluca will
presumably have his own ideas.
Cheers,
Tim.
--
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home