4 ms·
Could the title of this piece also be "Why are arm VMs so different?" or is this actually specific to Apple's chips? Wouldn't anyone transitioning between two a
by nsteel 3y ago
Could the title of this piece also be "Why are arm VMs so different?" or is this actually specific to Apple's chips? Wouldn't anyone transitioning between two architectures while maintaining compatibility be in the exact same situation?
I'm just curious what's special in this case (if anything).
- neilalexander 3y agoThe post is more about VirtIO than it is about the processor architecture. VirtIO is not ARM-specific.
- IMcD23 3y agoIt’s not Apple Silicon specific either. I don’t understand the title. Maybe it should have been “Apple’s virtualization API and VirtIO driver support on Apple Silucon”
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- JohnBooty 3y agoTechnically, no. Effectively, sort of. When they transitioned to Apple Silicon they simultaneously transitioned to Virtio.
- bonzini 3y agoIndeed, Virtualization.framework already supported virtio in guests before, but that's when they added host drivers. By the way this: > In the Virtio model, providing such support is the task of the operating system, not the virtualiser. is wrong. Virtualization.framework is a standard implementation of a virtualiser that is shipped with macOS, and while it includes virtio, it does not have to be part of the OS; the same task can be done by anyone (for example QEMU). The low-level, OS-dependent part of virtualization support is called Hypervisor.framework and it does not have any knowledge of virtio.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]