On Tuesday 14 September 2010 08:55:43 Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 10:51 +0100 on 13 Sep (1284375082), Dong, Eddie wrote:
> >> Currently, the term nestedhvm is vastly used. I am curious: will we
> >> support nestedPVM in future? If not, I guess nestedvm, or nvm is
> >> better. Just 2 cents.
> >
> > We already do support nesting PV in HVM. I doubt we'll ever support
> > PV-in-PV.
>
> I believe so.
>
> > I like "nested HVM"; it describes exactly what the feature does.
>
> Mmm, I may be bias since to me VM is same with HVM. But PVM is special. HVM
> is invented to distinguish with PVM only, but in nested virtualization, if
> we don't have PVM, then the existing of HVM is not that high priority. But
> I can follow if that is the wish.
>
> But at least it should be nested_vcpu rather than nested HVM, since we are
> talking about per VCPU stuff. Of course nestedhvm_vcpu is fine too though
> it is much longer.
>
> Or just use nvcpu, nhvm?
If you were using a clear namespace scheme, you wouldn't need to hang up
yourself on nuances how to call things.
Christoph
--
---to satisfy European Law for business letters:
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach b. Muenchen
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Sitz: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home