[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8B9241.20300@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 08:48:49 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
CC: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
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 08/19/2009 08:36 AM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>> If virtio net in guest could be improved instead, everyone would
>> benefit.
>>
> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
> connector, you are happy?
>
This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.
>> I am doing this, and I wish more people would join. Instead,
>> you change ABI in a incompatible way.
>>
> Only by choice of my particular connector. The ABI is a function of the
> connector design. So one such model is to terminate the connector in
> qemu, and surface the resulting objects as PCI devices. I choose not to
> use this particular design for my connector that I am pushing upstream
> because I am of the opinion that I can do better by terminating it in
> the guest directly as a PV optimized bus. However, both connectors can
> theoretically coexist peacefully.
>
virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390. Transporting
virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything over
directly transporting virtio over that something else.
--
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