On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 07:57:29PM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > > Very little in user space should be dependent on the platform (as > > opposed to the ISA). Non-global zones don't need a distinct platform > > type because nothing in a non-global zone has access to any of those > > things that depend on platform. > > I would argue that a precise "am I running in a virtualized > environment" interface would be valuable to a large class of userland > programs (say those desiring some not-too-exotic form of raw device > access, like libusb consumers); having to know all the virtualized > platforms or checking my zone name seems like a roundabout way of > doing so. Perhaps I just like accurate error messages.
None of my comments are an argument against providing a more detailed mechanism for describing capabilities where they are needed. Indeed, we should do that as and when needed. > The scenario that led us here is that Xen images can be booted into > either form, and that such a scenario is a possibility in certain > deployments. Since we didn't change uname(2) on x86-derived systems > for new ISAs (c.f. isalist, a new and precise interface) nor for > multi-processors, I am still trying to figure why it's correct now. If it turns out that the notion of more than platform on i386 machines is toxic to too many applications, we may need to reconsider things. As it stands, we've not got a clear picture yet of how broad the problem is or isn't. regards john
