[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:08:54 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Cc: akataria@...are.com, James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>,
Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>,
Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Chetan.Loke@...lex.Com" <Chetan.Loke@...lex.Com>,
"linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"pv-drivers@...are.com" <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI driver for VMware's virtual HBA - V4.
On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 05:12:26PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Alok Kataria wrote:
>> I see your point, but the ring logic or the ABI that we use to
>> communicate between the hypervisor and guest is not shared between our
>> storage and network drivers. As a result, I don't see any benefit of
>> separating out this ring handling mechanism, on the contrary it might
>> just add some overhead of translating between various layers for our
>> SCSI driver.
>>
>
> But if you separate out the ring logic, it allows the scsi logic to be
> shared by other paravirtual device drivers. This is significant and
> important from a Linux point of view.
As someone who has been hacking on a virtio scsi prototype I don't think
it's a good idea. The vmware driver is a horrible design and I don't
think it should be merged. Besides beeing a ugly driver and ABI we
really should not support this kind of closed protocol development.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists