Re: [patch 00/21] Xen-paravirt: Xen guest implementation forparavirt_ops interface

From: Christoph Lameter
Date: Fri Feb 16 2007 - 17:00:14 EST

On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Zachary Amsden wrote:

> Yes, but that is just because the Xen hooks happens to be near the last part
> of the merge. VMI required some special hooks, as do both Xen and lhype (I
> think ... Rusty can correct me if lhype's puppy's have precluded the addition
> of new hooks). Xen page table handling is very different, mostly it is trap
> and emulate so writable page tables can work, which means they don't always
> issue hypercalls for PTE updates, although they do have that option, should
> the hypervisor MMU model change, or performance concerns prompt a different
> model (or perhaps, migration?)

Well looks like there are still some major design issues to be ironed out.
What is proposed here is to make paravirt_ops a fake generic
API and then tunnel through it to vendor specific kernel mods.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at