RE: Xen vs Intel terminology (was: RE: [Xen-ia64-devel] Re: PMT tablefor XEN/IA64 (was: RE:Transparentparavirtualization vs. xenparavirtualization))

["Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx>]

Tian, Kevin wrote:
> 
> Agree for using unified terms. But disagree that you force an "Intel"
> title to those public used terms. Those are not ones communicated in
> private; instead you can find them on xen mailing list. For example:  
> 
>
/***********************************************************************
*******
>  * arch/xen/drivers/blkif/backend/main.c
>  *
>  * Back-end of the driver for virtual block devices. This portion of
> the ...
> 
> Blkif is the directory name however VBD (virtual block devices) is
> the functional name. People can use either. So does VNIF. 
> 
>> 
>> In particular (I think):
>> 
>> service domain == domain0 (or also IDD's?)
>> PMT = p2m (also m2p?)
> 
> PMT is physical to machine mapping table (you may use 'p2m'), but
> machine to physical mapping table (you may use MPT or m2p either) is
> different. Both are two basic components in xen/x86.s  
> 
>> VBD = blkif
>> VNIF = netif
>> (others?)
They are different from the blkif or netif in the sense that those are
used by _unmodified_ OSes. The backend part is basically same, but
frontend is different, i.e.  pure Linux driver. We already sent patches
for VBD to the xen mainling, and some xen folks (including Ian) are
already fimilar with these names in the VT context. 

> 
> Anyway, this summary is nice to have.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kevin

Jun
---
Intel Open Source Technology Center

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel