[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49D45F59.9030100@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:46:49 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
CC: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>, andi@...stfloor.org,
ghaskins@...ell.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, agraf@...e.de,
pmullaney@...ell.com, pmorreale@...ell.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
Herbert Xu wrote:
> Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws> wrote:
>
>> That said, I don't think we're bound today by the fact that we're in
>> userspace. Rather we're bound by the interfaces we have between the
>> host kernel and userspace to generate IO. I'd rather fix those
>> interfaces than put more stuff in the kernel.
>>
>
> I'm sorry but I totally disagree with that. By having our IO
> infrastructure in user-space we've basically given up the main
> advantage of kvm, which is that the physical drivers operate in
> the same environment as the hypervisor.
>
I don't understand this. If we had good interfaces, all that userspace
would do is translate guest physical addresses to host physical
addresses, and translate the guest->host protocol to host API calls. I
don't see anything there that benefits from being in the kernel.
Can you elaborate?
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
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