[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <adaocpuo9vs.fsf@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:25:11 -0700
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@...co.com>
To: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@...e.de>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...are.com>, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@....cx>,
Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Robert Love <robert.w.love@...el.com>,
Randy Dunlap <randy.dunlap@...cle.com>,
Mike Christie <michaelc@...wisc.edu>,
"linux-scsi\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rolf Eike Beer <eike-kernel@...tec.de>,
Maxime Austruy <maustruy@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI driver for VMware's virtual HBA.
> Nobody said you had to have the exact same driver for every hypervisor.
> What people are suggesting is that we look at commonalities in the
> interfaces both from a control plane point of view (transport class) and
> from a code sharing point of view (libscsivirt). However, all the
> hypervisor interfaces I've seen are basically DMA rings ...
I don't think that's anything special about hypervisors though -- pretty
much all modern device interfaces are basically DMA rings, aren't they?
I'm definitely in favor of common code to handle commonality but on the
other hand I don't see what's so special about virtual devices vs. real
HW devices. One the one side we have VMware's closed hypervisor code
and on the other side we have vendor XYZ's closed RTL and firmware code.
- R.
--
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