[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AB3E965.10300@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 22:11:17 +0200
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@...emonkey.ws>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, Amit Shah <amit.shah@...hat.com>,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] virtio_console: Add support for multiple ports for generic
guest and host communication
On 09/18/09 19:55, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> So you need break, parity ... no be serious please
>
> Sure, why not?
>
> In QEMU, we have the ability to hook our devices directly to a physical
> serial device and we pass through break, parity, and the other serial
> device properties.
Yes for a emulated 16550.
No for virtio-console.
If you want the guest drive some silly piece of hardware which wants a
serial mode != 8N1 or needs breaks you can't use virtio-console.
> Again, this is paravirtual serial device and I think it's entirely
> reasonable for people to hook up these ports in the guest directly to
> physical serial devices in the host.
Except that the paravirtual device named 'virtio-console' simply doesn't
allow to set serial parameters such as parity, data bits and stop bits.
It is *really* just a (single) byte stream piped over a virtio ring.
The guest side happens to be connected to hvc, so you can use that as
console, thus the name 'virtio-console'.
The plan is to extend that to multiple byte streams. The streams can be
hooked up to hvc (and one stream allways will be for backward
compatibility reasons), giving you a text console. Or they can be
linked to a character device with a name tag (aka sysfs attribute),
providing a named bidirectional byte stream for guest<->host communication.
> From my perspective, this is a paravirtual serial device and nothing
> more.
It simply isn't, see above.
> All the discussion of things like guest copy/paste support is a
> bit silly.
Implementing transparent copy/paste support needs some communication
channel between guest and host. The multiport virtio console driver
provides just that.
> This is the wrong way to approach that sort of thing because
> it's not something that belongs in the kernel at all.
Who claimed the copy/paste bits should go into the kernel?
They will not of course.
> Furthermore, the
> current proposal doesn't handle anything like save/restore which is
> needed for live migration.
That is something the host side (i.e. qemu) has to solve.
The guest will not care about it at all ;)
cheers,
Gerd
--
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