[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070403111731.52f2102a@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:17:31 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae@...ibm.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
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?
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:30:36 +0200,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2007 10:29:06 Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > On Monday 02 April 2007 23:12, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > >
> > > > How would that work in the case where virtualized guests don't have a
> > > > visible PCI bus, and the virtual environment doesn't pretend to emulate
> > > > a PCI bus?
> > >
> > > If they emulated one with the appropiate device
> > > then distribution driver auto probing would just work transparently for
> > > them.
> >
> > Still, that would only make sense for virtualized platforms that usually have
> > a PCI bus. Thinking about seeing a PCI device on ,lets say, s390 is strange.
>
> If it gets the job done surely you can tolerate a little strangeness?
On s390, it would be more than strangeness. There's no implementation
of PCI at all, someone would have to cook it up - and it wouldn't have
any use beyond those special devices. Since there isn't any bus type
that is available on *all* architectures, a generic "virtual" bus with
very simple probing seems much saner...
-
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