[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <49D473EA020000C700056627@lucius.provo.novell.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:14:34 -0600
From: "Patrick Mullaney" <pmullaney@...ell.com>
To: <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: <anthony@...emonkey.ws>, <andi@...stfloor.org>,
<herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
"Gregory Haskins" <GHaskins@...ell.com>,
"Peter Morreale" <PMorreale@...ell.com>, <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
<agraf@...e.de>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus
On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 16:27 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> virtio is a stable ABI.
>
> > However, theres still the possibility we can make this work in an ABI
> > friendly way with cap-bits, or other such features. For instance, the
> > virtio-net driver could register both with pci and vbus-proxy and
> > instantiate a device with a slightly different ops structure for each or
> > something. Alternatively we could write a host-side shim to expose vbus
> > devices as pci devices or something like that.
> >
>
> Sounds complicated...
>
IMO, it doesn't sound anymore complicated than making virtio support the
concepts already provided by vbus/venet-tap driver. Isn't there already
precedent for alternative approaches co-existing and having the users
decide which is the most appropriate for their use case? Switching
drivers in order to improve latency for a certain class of applications
would seem like something latency sensitive users would be more than
willing to do. I'd like to point out 2 things. Greg has offered help
in moving virtio into the vbus infrastructure. The vbus infrastructure
is a large part of what is being proposed here.
--
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