[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090817150844.GA3307@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:08:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Cc: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for
vbus_driver objects
* Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com> wrote:
> Hi Ingo,
>
> 1) First off, let me state that I have made every effort to
> propose this as a solution to integrate with KVM, the most recent
> of which is April:
>
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408
>
> If you read through the various vbus related threads on LKML/KVM
> posted this year, I think you will see that I made numerous polite
> offerings to work with people on finding a common solution here,
> including Michael.
>
> In the end, Michael decided that go a different route using some
> of the ideas proposed in vbus + venet-tap to create vhost-net.
> This is fine, and I respect his decision. But do not try to pin
> "fracturing" on me, because I tried everything to avoid it. :)
That's good.
So if virtio is fixed to be as fast as vbus, and if there's no other
techical advantages of vbus over virtio you'll be glad to drop vbus
and stand behind virtio?
Also, are you willing to help virtio to become faster? Or do you
have arguments why that is impossible to do so and why the only
possible solution is vbus? Avi says no such arguments were offered
so far.
Ingo
--
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