[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A03EEDA.5090008@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 08 May 2009 11:35:38 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
CC: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support
Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>> Ack. I hope when its all said and done I can convince you that the
>>> framework to code up those virtio backends in the kernel is vbus ;)
>>>
>> If vbus doesn't bring significant performance advantages, I'll prefer
>> virtio because of existing investment.
>>
>
> Just to clarify: vbus is just the container/framework for the in-kernel
> models. You can implement and deploy virtio devices inside the
> container (tho I haven't had a chance to sit down and implement one
> yet). Note that I did publish a virtio transport in the last few series
> to demonstrate how that might work, so its just ripe for the picking if
> someone is so inclined.
>
>
Yeah I keep getting confused over this.
> So really the question is whether you implement the in-kernel virtio
> backend in vbus, in some other framework, or just do it standalone.
>
I prefer the standalone model. Keep the glue in userspace.
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
--
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