* Ingo Molnar ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > ( if there is no backwards compatibility promise then i have zero > complaints: then paravirt_ops + the hypercall just becomes another API > internal to Linux that we can improve at will. But that is not > realistic: if we provide CONFIG_VMI today, people will expect to have > CONFIG_VMI in the future too. )
This was the whole reason we didn't adopt VMI directly. Instead, preferring an kernel internal API, pv_ops, that can adopt naturally as the kernel changes, and it is the pv_ops client code's (or backend as it is also referred to) responsibility to do whatever is necessary to map back to the hypervisor's ABI. The goal was explicitly to keep things internal fluid as usual. As I said before, no matter how you slice it there's glue code somewhere to deal with compatibilities. And it's always been the virtualization platform's responsibility to deal with the changes. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
