From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964781AbXCFTqe (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:46:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964793AbXCFTqe (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:46:34 -0500 Received: from 216-99-217-87.dsl.aracnet.com ([216.99.217.87]:53724 "EHLO sous-sol.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964781AbXCFTqc (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 14:46:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2007 11:46:12 -0800 From: Chris Wright To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Gerd Hoffmann , virtualization , Jan Beulich , Andrew Morton , Linus Torvalds , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Roland McGrath Subject: Re: Xen & VMI? Message-ID: <20070306194612.GG19575@sequoia.sous-sol.org> References: <20070305120631.GA14105@elte.hu> <1173101297.26165.39.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1173142644.4644.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> <45ECBDDC.8080708@vmware.com> <45ECC076.9050209@goop.org> <45ECC91D.1020809@vmware.com> <45ECC9B6.1060209@goop.org> <20070306081909.GA9331@elte.hu> <45ED2837.3020108@suse.de> <20070306085222.GA17002@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070306085222.GA17002@elte.hu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Ingo Molnar (mingo@elte.hu) wrote: > yes - but de-facto contradicted by the Xen paravirt_ops patches sent to > lkml ;) There's no intrinsic value to the Xen on VMI approach that's superior to Xen on pv_ops (not to mention the complications that it causes). What are you driving at? You seem to be arguing that abstractions are bad unless done via ABI's. ACPI.... thanks, -chris