[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Announcing xen/master: pvops git trees rearranged
- To: Andy Burns <xen.lists@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Thiago Camargo Martins Cordeiro <thiagocmartinsc@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:32:10 -0300
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:32:34 -0700
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=XFpDLlzebsuqm266qfnUplkcNTZ/wkj9gITWUAlx7+ZZ8R+0AtugpLSRItjizmfGDA nmCTpE2j8AoOXPuP9yyJzrRlUhTI8UjSuvmnq0rUKLreZqXhImXPNNlX7jR7pNDw1jzM 2Nu/jjNpVAFASrc04tiF1E6hYxkIoLnBho2/g=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
And what about the OpenSolaris, NetBSD and FreeBSD paravirtualized kernels?!Who needs the full virtualization?!
:-D
Thiago 2009/9/24 Thiago Camargo Martins Cordeiro <thiagocmartinsc@xxxxxxxxx>
I don't believe that, because the paravirt_ops provides a great virtualization job without the need for a special CPU. There are too many people around the world in this situation...
I don't have too much CPUs with VMX and in all my dom0s that have the VMX flag, I simple disable it in my BIOS.
The mainline Linux with the pv_ops dom0 will arrive some day... for sure!
Cheers, Thiago 2009/9/24 Andy Burns <xen.lists@xxxxxxxxxxx>
2009/9/24 Christian Tramnitz <chris.ace@xxxxxxx>:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>
>> No plans to put anything into .32. We need to have a solid story about
>> how to handle IOAPIC setup before pushing the rest, I think.
>
> Yes, I guess this increases the likelihood of things being merged...
One potentially disturbing snippet on LWN today ...
http://lwn.net/Articles/353852/
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
