Heiko Carstens wrote: >>> We intend to move to a common arch-independent kernel interface and >>> userspace with kvm. >>> >> The address space and vcpu management are rather different from kvm's, >> however your approach is better and we'll want to move kvm in your >> direction rather than the other way round (specifically the tight vcpu >> <-> task coupling; mmu is more diffcult). >> > > How do we continue from here? Adding new architectures to the ioctl based > approach or change kvm to a syscall interface?
I think we can start the syscall based API (with compatibility ioctls for x86), now that we have all four archs looking at it. > Also IMHO it would be better > to move the code away from drivers and to kernel/ or virt/ with arch > dependent backends. > I agree. I'll do that some time after the merge window closes. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
