[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       xen-devel
Subject:    Re: [Xen-devel] Proposal for init/kexec/hotplug format for Xen
From:       Harry Butterworth <harry () hebutterworth ! freeserve ! co ! uk>
Date:       2005-02-28 22:24:44
Message-ID: 1109629484.6186.10.camel () localhost
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, 2005-02-28 at 15:28 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:

> I'd rather batch my complexity up to where it only has to be written
> once and not every time you port an OS.  Keeping things simple for the
> guest (like this) seems reasonable to me.

I think you are going to have to write some OS specific code every time
you port an OS anyway. The question is where it ends up.

With the registry approach you have a clean protocol in domain 0 and the
guest OS specific code stays in each corresponding guest OS.

With the batching up the complexity approach I think there is a risk
that you end up with a bundle of guest OS specific code all coupled
together in the domain 0 code which seems less good to me.

-- 
Harry Butterworth <harry@hebutterworth.freeserve.co.uk>



-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xen-devel
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]