[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070403124108.06108665@gondolin.boeblingen.de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 12:41:08 +0200
From: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>, 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?
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:41:49 +0200,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I think that's true outside of s390, but a standardized virtual device
> interface should be able to work there as well. Interestingly, the
> s390 channel I/O also uses two 16 bit numbers to identify a device
> (type and model), just like PCI or USB, so in that light, we might
> be able to use the same number space for something entirely different
> depending on the virtual bus.
Even if we used those ids for cu_type and dev_type, it would still be
ugly IMO. It would be much cleaner to just define a very simple, easy
to implement virtual bus without dragging implementation details for
other types of devices around.
-
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