On Mon, 07.07.14 16:37, Thomas Blume (thomas.bl...@suse.com) wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2014, Lennart Poettering wrote: > > >>For the test, e.g. ConditionVirtualization, there would be no difference. > >>I only distinguished this in order to have systemd-detect-virt showing the > >>correct virtualization technology. > >>Sure we could cover everything under something like, e.g. "s390 > >>virtualization". > >>But I thought it is smarter to give this little additional information. > >>Maybe there are some cases where someone needs to know in more detail which > >>virtualization is running. > > > >Again, what precisely is the difference between the two virtualizations you > >wanted to distinguish? > > IMHO the main difference is the level of maturity. > z/VM is about 30 years old and has a huge amount of tools for everything you > could imagine. KVM is relatively new and under heavy development. > Furthermore, KVM is bound to the linux kernel, while z/VM is not. > Finally, KVM could theoretically run inside z/VM (thought it doesn't make > sense > running KVM on an already virtualized CPU) but not vice-versa. > > Kay, my colleague Ihno told me that you were working in the s390 department > at SUSE. > Any opinion about the use of distinguishing z/VM from KVM under s390?
Well, obviously, we should distuingish kvm from some s390-specific virtualization. I was mostly referring to your original's patch distinction between "PR/SM" and "z/VM". What is that about? Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
