[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 00/31] KVM/MIPS: Implement hardware virtualization via the MI

To: David Daney <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/31] KVM/MIPS: Implement hardware virtualization via the MIPS-VZ extensions.
From: Gleb Natapov <>
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2013 09:18:49 +0300
Cc: David Daney <>, David Daney <>,,,, Sanjay Lal <>,, David Daney <>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
Original-recipient: rfc822;
References: <> <> <> <>
On Sun, Jun 09, 2013 at 04:23:51PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> On 06/09/2013 12:31 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 07, 2013 at 04:15:00PM -0700, David Daney wrote:
> >>I should also add that I will shortly send patches for the kvm tool
> >>required to drive this VM as well as a small set of patches that
> >>create a para-virtualized MIPS/Linux guest kernel.
> >>
> >>The idea is that because there is no standard SMP linux system, we
> >>create a standard para-virtualized system that uses a handful of
> >>hypercalls, but mostly just uses virtio devices.  It has no emulated
> >>real hardware (no 8250 UART, no emulated legacy anything...)
> >>
> >Virtualization is useful for running legacy code. Why dismiss support
> >for non pv guests so easily?
> Just because we create standard PV system devices, doesn't preclude
> emulating real hardware.  In fact Sanjay Lal's work includes QEMU
> support for doing just this for a MIPS malta board.  I just wanted a
> very simple system I could implement with the kvm tool in a couple
> of days, so that is what I initially did.
That makes sense. From your wording I misunderstood that there is something
in proposed patches that requires PV to run a guest.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>