[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <46117F72.6020506@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:10:58 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
CC: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
mathiasen@...il.com
Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
>> The implementation wouldn't need to use PCI at all. There wouldn't
>> even need to be PCI like registers internally. Just a pci device
>> with an ID somewhere in sysfs. PCI with unique IDs
>> is just a convenient and well established key into the driver module
>> collection. Once you have the right driver it can do what it wants.
>
> But I understood hpa's suggestion to mean that there would be a standard
> PCI interface for a hardware RNG, and a single linux driver for that
> device, which all hypervisors would be expected to implement. But
> that's only reasonable if the virtualization environment has some notion
> of PCI to expose to the Linux guest.
>
That is, of course, true, although "some notion of" is very broad, and
one could also use this for detection and some hypervisor-specific
communication for the actual I/O.
However, one probably wants to think about what the heck one actually
means with "virtualization" in the absence of a lot of this stuff. PCI
is probably the closest thing we have to a lowest common denominator for
device detection.
-hpa
-
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