[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-users] Re: Xen is a feature
- To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 01:41:43 +0200 (CEST)
- Cc: "npiggin@xxxxxxx" <npiggin@xxxxxxx>, ksrinivasan <ksrinivasan@xxxxxxxxxx>, "jeremy@xxxxxxxx" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "wimcoekaerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <wimcoekaerts@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "gregkh@xxxxxxx" <gregkh@xxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx" <kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "x86@xxxxxxxxxx" <x86@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Stephen Spector <stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx>, "avi@xxxxxxxxxx" <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "EAnderson@xxxxxxxxxx" <EAnderson@xxxxxxxxxx>, "jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx" <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>, "mingo@xxxxxxx" <mingo@xxxxxxx>, "torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 04 Jun 2009 01:37:42 -0700
- List-id: Xen user discussion <xen-users.lists.xensource.com>
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> If we were to break an interface with Dom0 for Xen then we would have a bunch
> of people crying foul about us breaking a defined API. One of Thomas's
> (and a valid one) is that once Linux supports an external API it must always
> keep it compatible. This will hamper new development in Linux if the APIs are
> scattered throughout the kernel without much thought.
> Now here's a crazy solution. Merge the Xen hypervisor into Linux ;-)
Not that crazy as you might think.
> Give full ownership of Xen to the Linux community. One of your people could be
> a maintainer. This way the API between Dom0 and the hypervisor would be an
> one. If you needed to upgrade Dom0, you also must upgrade the hypervisor, but
> would be fine since the hypervisor would also be in the Kernel proper.
> This may not solve all the issues that the x86 maintainers have with the Dom0
> patches, but it may help solve the API one.
In fact it would resolve the ABI problem once and forever as we could
fix hypervisor / dom0 in sync. hypervisor and dom0 need to run in
lock-step anyway if you want to make useful progress aside of
maintaining versioned interfaces which are known to bloat rapidly.
It's not a big deal to set a flag day which says: update hypervisor
and (dom0) kernel in one go.
Xen-users mailing list