Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 9 Jan 2011 21:57:52 +0800
From:      Xiaodong Yi <xdong.yi@gmail.com>
To:        Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>
Cc:        freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Testing Luvalley with FreeBSD as dom0
Message-ID:  <AANLkTik9Ckh2UAaed=YYbBFCP6yyd6kOmSXdEYmZPiEd@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20110109110022.GA10789@triton8.kn-bremen.de>
References:  <20100418191752.GA72730@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <w2r3b0605b31004181554tb90de59u6df8ebd5b1206caa@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=nhk%2BeCG6kbe4LfeaTQWkKaVcr%2BRx2LrKparDO@mail.gmail.com> <20110107194516.GA28544@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTikvP8SezKEZYSUimaj3u8fkk2Vw6-aY09KV=RF3@mail.gmail.com> <20110107213643.GA32645@triton8.kn-bremen.de> <AANLkTi=2Nn8xeKudxb2uSR=aLx0GW43gVPCdL-=hjP7z@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTikbuWJbtPYaLW=8BEH4f5oiumzEN6rgwOB5tC=R@mail.gmail.com> <20110109110022.GA10789@triton8.kn-bremen.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Yes, license is a big problem. And I'm sorry to let you and Brandon
know that Luvalley is currently using KVM's code. And I think it's
hard and unnecessary to write the virtualization code from scratch. Do
you think so?

Best regards,

Xiaodong

2011/1/9 Juergen Lock <nox@jelal.kn-bremen.de>:
> On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:33:59AM -0600, Brandon Gooch wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Xiaodong Yi <xdong.yi@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > I confirm that I no longer have time for Luvalley. However, I will be
>> > extreemly happy if anybody is willing to take over from me.
>> > Especially, I quite agree to customize Luvalley for FreeBSD, through
>> > it supports all kinds of Dom0 OSes. Howerver, I hope that the LIGHT
>> > architecture of Luvalley could be kept. Maybe it is useful to patch
>> > dom0 FreeBSD kernel (especially for interrupt handling), but it should
>> > not be very complex. Part of the code comes from KVM, and I suggest to
>> > keep flying with KVM to make sure that guest VMs work well.
>>
>> I believe that if serious effort were to be put forward by the FreeBSD
>> developers to further develop the code, the result would need to be
>> GPL and Linux free (or VERY close to it). This is an area of
>> contention within the FreeBSD developer and user community, so it
>> would need to be addressed. As the developer of Luvalley, do you have
>> the ability to re-license the code using a BSD license?
>>
>> Are there too many technical issues with the code to do this? Juergen
>> mentioned that bits of the code are based on (or pulled directly
>> from?) Linux KVM. That probably wouldn't fly here...
>>
>> > Luvalley does boot and run on bare hardware. =A0But it does not taint
>> > dom0 FreeBSD. Although the `non-root' mode dom0 FreeBSD kernel has
>> > direct access to BIOS and hardware, Luvalley tries hard to coordinate
>> > with it. For example, Luvalley traps the BIOS calls from the FreeBSD
>> > kernel to report the modified E820 table. Another example is that
>> > Luvalley uses NMI as the IPI interrupt to avoid conflict with BSD
>> > kernel. And I also believe that simple patches could work if some
>> > corners of FreeBSD kernel are tainted.
>> >
>> > Regards, and looking forward to the following news ...
>> >
>> > Xiaodong
>>
>> As am I...
>>
>> Thanks for chiming in Xiaodong!
>
> Actually with `tainting' the FreeBSD kernel I meant causing it to be
> affected by the gpl and its requirements. =A0So if someone were to ship
> e.g. an appliance that uses Luvalley and a modified FreeBSD kernel he
> would only have to provide sourcecode of Luvalley and the userland
> Luvalley version of qemu-kvm, not of his FreeBSD kernel modifications,
> or of other (non-gpl) userland apps for that matter.
>
> =A0But again, IANAL. :)
>
> =A0Cheers,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Juergen (also hoping Luvalley will have a future...)
>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AANLkTik9Ckh2UAaed=YYbBFCP6yyd6kOmSXdEYmZPiEd>