[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <90eb1dc70909170716i5de0b909tf69c93e679f5fbc8@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 09:16:56 -0500
From: Javier Guerra <javier@...rrag.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
"Ira W. Snyder" <iws@...o.caltech.edu>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...e.hu, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hpa@...or.com,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, s.hetze@...ux-ag.com,
alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 3/3] vhost_net: a kernel-level virtio server
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Gregory Haskins
<gregory.haskins@...il.com> wrote:
> It is certainly not a requirement to make said
> chip somehow work with existing drivers/facilities on bare metal, per
> se. Why should virtual systems be different?
i'd guess it's an issue of support resources. a hardware developer
creates a chip and immediately sells it, getting small but assured
revenue, with it they write (or pays to write) drivers for a couple of
releases, and stop to manufacture it as soon as it's not profitable.
software has a much longer lifetime, especially at the platform-level
(and KVM is a platform for a lot of us). also, being GPL, it's cheaper
to produce but has (much!) more limited resources. creating a new
support issue is a scary thought.
--
Javier
--
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