[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4A8A8631.1040006@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 13:45:05 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>,
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
On 08/18/2009 01:28 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>
>> Suppose a nested guest has two devices. One a virtual device backed by
>> its host (our guest), and one a virtual device backed by us (the real
>> host), and assigned by the guest to the nested guest. If both devices
>> use hypercalls, there is no way to distinguish between them.
>>
> Not sure I understand. What I had in mind is that devices would have to
> either use different hypercalls and map hypercall to address during
> setup, or pass address with each hypercall. We get the hypercall,
> translate the address as if it was pio access, and know the destination?
>
There are no different hypercalls. There's just one hypercall
instruction, and there's no standard on how it's used. If a nested call
issues a hypercall instruction, you have no idea if it's calling a
Hyper-V hypercall or a vbus/virtio kick.
You could have a protocol where you register the hypercall instruction's
address with its recipient, but it quickly becomes a tangled mess. And
for what? pio and hypercalls have the same performance characteristics.
--
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