Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

[Avi Kivity]

Gregory Haskins wrote:

   

> > > Ack.  I hope when its all said and done I can convince you that the
> > > framework to code up those virtio backends in the kernel is vbus ;)
> > >       
> > If vbus doesn't bring significant performance advantages, I'll prefer
> > virtio because of existing investment.
> >     
>
> Just to clarify: vbus is just the container/framework for the in-kernel
> models.  You can implement and deploy virtio devices inside the
> container (tho I haven't had a chance to sit down and implement one
> yet).  Note that I did publish a virtio transport in the last few series
> to demonstrate how that might work, so its just ripe for the picking if
> someone is so inclined.
>
>   

Yeah I keep getting confused over this.

> So really the question is whether you implement the in-kernel virtio
> backend in vbus, in some other framework, or just do it standalone.
>   

I prefer the standalone model.  Keep the glue in userspace.

--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/