[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8972C3.30202@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:09:55 -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 08/17/2009 05:16 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>
> We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out specific
> differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll be glad to hear
> (and steal) them though.
>
You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh?
Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it
apparently falls on deaf ears.
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists