[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <509A06AB.2020700@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2012 07:58:51 +0100
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@...hat.com>
To: Andy King <acking@...are.com>
CC: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, pv-drivers@...are.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, georgezhang@...are.com
Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming
On 11/05/12 19:19, Andy King wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of
>> this stuff without your proprietary bits?
>
> Do you mean the VMCI calls? The VMCI driver is in the process of being
> upstreamed into the drivers/misc tree. Greg (cc'd on these patches) is
> actively reviewing that code and we are addressing feedback.
>
> Also, there was some interest from RedHat into using vSockets as a unified
> interface, routed over a hypervisor-specific transport (virtio or
> otherwise, although for now VMCI is the only one implemented).
Can you outline how this can be done? From a quick look over the code
it seems like vsock has a hard dependency on vmci, is that correct?
When making vsock a generic, reusable kernel service it should be the
other way around: vsock should provide the core implementation and an
interface where hypervisor-specific transports (vmci, virtio, xenbus,
...) can register themself.
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