[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A896648.9040707@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:16:40 -0400
From: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Gregory Haskins <ghaskins@...ell.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver
objects
Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/15/2009 01:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> This will generally be used for hypervisors to publish any host-side
>>> virtual devices up to a guest. The guest will have the opportunity
>>> to consume any devices present on the vbus-proxy as if they were
>>> platform devices, similar to existing buses like PCI.
>>>
>>>
>> Is there a consensus on this with the KVM folks? (i've added the KVM
>> list to the Cc:)
>>
>
> My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be better
> off if everyone contributed to enhancing virtio, which already has
> widely deployed guest drivers and non-Linux guest support.
>
> It may have merit if it is proven that it is technically superior to
> virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I mean
> design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is.
>
The design is very different, so hopefully I can start to convince you
why it might be interesting.
Kind Regards,
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists