From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1161208AbWALTbm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:31:42 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1161210AbWALTbm (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:31:42 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:64946 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161208AbWALTbl (ORCPT ); Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:31:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 11:30:57 -0800 From: Greg KH To: "Mike D. Day" Cc: Anthony Liguori , Gerd Hoffmann , Arjan van de Ven , lkml , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] sysfs support for Xen attributes Message-ID: <20060112193057.GA13539@kroah.com> References: <43C5A199.1080708@us.ibm.com> <20060112005710.GA2936@kroah.com> <43C5B59C.8050908@us.ibm.com> <43C65196.8040402@suse.de> <1137072089.2936.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <43C66ACC.60408@suse.de> <20060112173926.GD10513@kroah.com> <43C6A5B4.80801@us.ibm.com> <20060112190845.GA13073@kroah.com> <43C6AB78.1040301@us.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43C6AB78.1040301@us.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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