[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <25ea40ab-587d-dcb5-fd4e-287469fa6705@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 10:46:50 +0100
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>
Cc: virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org, Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
qemu-devel <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...zon.com>,
Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [PATCH 1/3] virtio: Basic implementation of
virtio pstore driver
On 18/11/2016 05:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 12:32:06PM +0900, Namhyung Kim wrote:
>> Btw I prefer using the kvmtool for my kernel work since it's much more
>> simpler..
>
> Up to you but then you should extend that to support 1.0 spec.
> I strongly object to adding to the list of legacy interfaces
> we need to maintain.
I object to adding paravirtualization unless there is a good reason why
the usual mechanisms for physical machines cannot be used. The cost of
maintaining a spec, two device implementations (kvmtool+qemu) and a
driver is not small, plus it will not work on older kernels.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists