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>