Nakajima, Jun wrote:
>>> one. Start the kvm leaves at 0x40001000 or something?
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, that works with me.
>>
>
> To me this is the beginning of fragmentation. Why do we need different
> and VMM-specific Linux paravirtualization for hardware-assisted
> virtualization? That would not be good for Linux.
>
On the contrary. Xen already has a hypercall interface, and we need to
keep supporting it. If we were to also support a vmm-independent
interface (aka "kvm interface"), then we need to be able to do that in
parallel. If we have a cpuid leaf clash, then its impossible to do so;
if we define the new interface to be disjoint from other current users
of cpuid, then we can support them concurrently.
J
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
