> This makes me again suggest that we have a > forum for discussing an open specification for hypervisor interaction. > There was at one time a FreeVM-L discussion list. The purpose was > not to produce any code (at least, not specifically any hypervisor > code) but rather form a specification for common reference. > > Both z/VM and VMware already share a fabulous trait in common > that the definition of a virtual machine is stated in plain text. > But we can do better still. > > We need a Lingua Franca for hypervisors. > Consider the command > > hcp attach F200-F202 mylinux > > Makes perfect sense, though the "handle" is a zSeries I/O range. > What would that mean to INTeL? Might look more like
Did I miss something? That address range is valid on IA32. > > hcp attach 300-31F,I11 mylinux > > It might be easier to express this commonly as > > hcp attach eth0 mylinux > > where "eth0" is an alias for the first ethernet adapter, > regardless of the syntax of the local hardware. > This is but one example of the kind of standard FreeVM-L was for. Wouldn't this kind of abstraction be valuable on zSeries just because it removes the reference to IO addresses than have nothing to do with anything other than where a device happens to be "plugged" in. In some sites, a name such as 'srp-lan' (Special Research Projects) would be far preferable to either. -- Cheers John Summerfield Microsoft's most solid OS: http://www.geocities.com/rcwoolley/ Note: mail delivered to me is deemed to be intended for me, for my disposition.
