Hi Cameron, Roman and Phil, On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 12:36:08AM -0800, Wei Liu wrote: > Hi, > > Microsoft's Linux Systems Group developed a Linux driver for the Microsoft > Hypervisor (MSHV for short). The driver is being upstreamed. The first > supported VMM is Cloud Hypervisor. QEMU will be the second supported > VMM. > > The plan is to write an mshv accelerator in QEMU. The accelerator is still in > the works. > > MSHV doesn't emulate instructions. VMMs are supposed to bring their own > instruction emulator. The path we've chosen is to reuse what's already in > QEMU. > The instruction emulator in HVF looks good for what we need. > > This patch series attempts to make the instruction emulator in HVF a common > component for the i386 target. It removes HVF specific code by either using a > set of hooks or moving it to better locations. The new incoming MSHV > accelerator will implement the hooks, and where necessary, enhance the > emulator > and / or add new hooks. > > This patch series is in RFC state. The patches have been lightly tested by > running a Linux VM on an Intel-based Mac. We hope to get some feedback on the > overall approach, and let the community bikeshed a bit about names and > location. > > First two patches fix issues in the existing code. They can be applied > regardless of the discussion around the overall approach. > > The checkpatch script complains about a few things. Some are from the original > code I didn't touch. For the code I changed or moved, it complains that some > lines are long (>80). Seeing that the rule was not followed strictly in the > old > code base, I held off fixing that class of issues. The other thing it > complains > is there is no entry for the new directory in MAINTAINERS. We can fix these > issues if they are deemed important. > > Please let us know what you think. The alternative is to duplicate the > instruction emulator code in the mshv accelerator. That looks to be a worse > option. >
As the maintainers of this code, do you have any comments on this? I have addressed the comments from Paolo. I'm wondering if I should wait for your input or just post another version. Thanks, Wei.
