[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A7E7F52.7020100@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2009 10:48:34 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] AlacrityVM guest drivers Reply-To:
On 08/06/2009 07:55 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> Based on this, I will continue my efforts surrounding to use of vbus including its use to accelerate KVM for AlacrityVM. If I can find a way to do this in such a way that KVM upstream finds acceptable, I would be very happy and will work towards whatever that compromise might be. OTOH, if the KVM community is set against the concept of a generalized/shared backend, and thus wants to use some other approach that does not involve vbus, that is fine too. Choice is one of the great assets of open source, eh? :)
>
KVM upstream (me) doesn't have much say regarding vbus. I am not a
networking expert and I'm not the virtio or networking stack maintainer,
so I'm not qualified to accept or reject the code. What I am able to do
is make sure that kvm can efficiently work with any driver/device stack;
this is why ioeventfd/irqfd were merged.
I still think vbus is a duplication of effort; I understand vbus has
larger scope than virtio, but I still think these problems could have
been solved within the existing virtio stack.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists