[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A87C3B9.2040206@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:30:49 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver
objects
On 08/15/2009 01:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> This will generally be used for hypervisors to publish any host-side
>> virtual devices up to a guest. The guest will have the opportunity
>> to consume any devices present on the vbus-proxy as if they were
>> platform devices, similar to existing buses like PCI.
>>
>>
> Is there a consensus on this with the KVM folks? (i've added the KVM
> list to the Cc:)
>
My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be better
off if everyone contributed to enhancing virtio, which already has
widely deployed guest drivers and non-Linux guest support.
It may have merit if it is proven that it is technically superior to
virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I mean
design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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