# Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the powerpc-merge tree

- List: linuxppc-dev
- 2 messages, 2 authors
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2012/10/3938230/t

## Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the powerpc-merge tree

- From: Scott Wood \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-10-11 17:29:24 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2012/10/3938230.md

```text
On 10/11/2012 12:24:59 PM, Timur Tabi wrote:
> Scott Wood wrote:
> >> > My concern is that when I think of a user-space header file, I =20
> think
> >> > of a
> >> > user-space application that calls ioctls.  I know that KVM guest
> >> > kernels
> >> > run as user-space processes, but that does not seem like a =20
> reason to
> >> > combine all of the header files that the KVM guest kernel needs =20
> with
> >> > "real" user-space header files.
>=20
> > So where should guest headers go?
>=20
> I admit that I don't have any answers, especially since this whole =20
> thing
> is new to me.  Like I said, I don't know much about KVM internals, so =20
> I
> just don't understand why KVM guests need to have access to these =20
> kernel
> header files as if they're user header files.  The guests are still =20
> Linux
> kernels (or other OSes that think they're running as privileged code).

For hypercalls and other paravirt.  That's the point -- they're not =20
kernel headers.  They're guest API headers.

-scott=
```

## Re: linux-next: manual merge of the kvm-ppc tree with the powerpc-merge tree

- From: Timur Tabi \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-10-11 17:32:11 
- Message: https://ratatoskr.run/linuxppc-dev/2012/10/3938231.md

```text
Scott Wood wrote:
> For hypercalls and other paravirt.  That's the point -- they're not  
> kernel headers.  They're guest API headers.

Well, IMHO, guest API != user-space.  Maybe we should have a parallel
mechanism to uapi to make the kvm guest header files available.

-- 
Timur Tabi
Linux kernel developer at Freescale
```