On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 02:18:16PM -0500, Mike D. Day wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
>
> >
> >Why not do the same thing that the Cell developers did for their
> >"special syscalls"? Or at the least, make it a "real" syscall like the
> >ppc64 developers did. It's not like there isn't a whole bunch of "prior
> >art" in the kernel today that you should be ignoring.
>
> A hypercall syscall would be good in a lot of ways. For x86/x86_64 there 
> are multiple hypervisors so we would need to make the syscall general 
> enough to support more than one hypervisor.
Why? What's wrong with one syscall per hypervisor? It's not like we
have a problem with adding 3 syscalls vs. 1. Let the other hypervisors
also ask for a new syscall when they get added to the kernel tree.
And this also will let the kernel community monitor what you do with
that syscall more carefully (i.e. you only better use it for
pass-through hypervisor stuff, and not as a general multiplexor for
other things...)
thanks,
greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel