From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Fri 05 Aug 2005 - 09:55:18 BST
On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 05:24:44PM +0900, aq wrote:
> On 8/5/05, Mark Williamson <mark.williamson_at_cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > > yes, xen is just _another_ arch and once it will be in
> > > mainline (IIRC they are working on it), we will of course
> > > support it out of the box (as we do for UML now)
> > Yep, they're working on it now. It's in the Real Soon Now category,
> > just needs some restructuring. Of possible interest to you is that
> > Xen will be a sub arch of i386 rather than a separate architecture
> > when it's properly merged. IIRC only really arch dep stuff in
> > Vserver is the addition of the syscalls - that code should all
> > be common to Xen and i386 so you probably won't have to do much
> > (anything) to support it.
> > > > It'd be good if a reference to this patch could be added to the
> > > > Xen wiki at http://wiki.xensource.com so that other people know
> > > > where to find it.
> > >
> > > well, feel free to add links to linux-vserver or to
> > > patches there ... we have a link to Xen (not the wiki)
> > > on our wiki since ... hmm, well for a very long time now
> > I saw it a while back. If Michal is agreeable (i.e. if he's
> > reasonably happy with the patch) I'll make sure it goes onto the Xen
> > wiki so that people can ue the two together.
> > > well, we all would love to see linux-vserver in mainline,
> > > but I guess the disadvantages of trying to get it into
> > > mainline (less performant code, only partial implementation,
> > > two branches to maintain) would easily outweight the
> > > advantages ...
> > Ack. In the meantime I'll continue hoping that one day we'll see the
> > mainline incorporate vserver in a way that makes everyone happy :-)
> Vserver people tried to push it into mainline for several times, but
> got some objections.
they did? interesting ...
> I heard that SElinux people were against it, as they said that they
> could extend SElinux to cover Vserver function, so including Vserver
> into kernel was not necessary ;-)
really? well that would be nice to have ...
> Looks like Vserver people dont mind it, so I guess we will not see
> Vserver in mainline very soon.
Vserver mailing list