[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ee31a12-a370-fc43-82a6-2235f598e970@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2018 09:51:43 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Tiwei Bie <tiwei.bie@...el.com>, Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
Cc: mst@...hat.com, alex.williamson@...hat.com, ddutile@...hat.com,
alexander.h.duyck@...el.com, virtio-dev@...ts.oasis-open.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
dan.daly@...el.com, cunming.liang@...el.com,
zhihong.wang@...el.com, jianfeng.tan@...el.com,
xiao.w.wang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [virtio-dev] Re: [RFC] vhost: introduce mdev based hardware vhost
backend
On 10/04/2018 06:57, Tiwei Bie wrote:
>> So you just move the abstraction layer from qemu to kernel, and you still
>> need different drivers in kernel for different device interfaces of
>> accelerators. This looks even more complex than leaving it in qemu. As you
>> said, another idea is to implement userspace vhost backend for accelerators
>> which seems easier and could co-work with other parts of qemu without
>> inventing new type of messages.
>
> I'm not quite sure. Do you think it's acceptable to
> add various vendor specific hardware drivers in QEMU?
I think so. We have vendor-specific quirks, and at some point there was
an idea of using quirks to implement (vendor-specific) live migration
support for assigned devices.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists