On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:45:33 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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.
It would probably make sense for the IA64 and S390 folks, who already have syscall-based implementations, to put up a straw man interface for comment? I was looking at refactoring the ioctl interface, but since we're dropping it then I'm glad I haven't put too much time into it. :) -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
