[Xen-devel] Re: A proposal - binary

[Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

David Lang wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > David Lang wrote:
> > > I'm not commenting on any of the specifics of the interface calls (I 
> > > trust you guys to make that be sane :-) I'm just responding the the 
> > > idea that the interface actually needs to be locked down to an ABI as 
> > > opposed to just source-level compatability.
> > you are right that the interface to the HV should be stable. But those 
> > are going
> > to be specific to the HV, the paravirt_ops allows the kernel to 
> > smoothly deal
> > with having different HV's.
> > So in a way it's an API interface to allow the kernel to deal with 
> > multiple
> > different ABIs that exist today and will in the future.
> so if I understand this correctly we are saying that a kernel compiled 
> to run on hypervisor A would need to be recompiled to run on hypervisor 
> B, and recompiled again to run on hypervisor C, etc
no the actual implementation of the operation structure is dynamic and can be 
picked
at runtime, so you can compile a kernel for A,B *and* C and at runtime the 
kernel
picks the one you have

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel