Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model forvbus_driver objects

[Ingo Molnar]

* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I don't have any technical objections to vbus/venet (I had in the 
> past re interrupts but I believe you've addressed them), and it 
> appears to perform very well.  However I still think we should 
> address virtio's shortcomings (as Michael is doing) rather than 
> create a competitor.  We have enough external competition, we 
> don't need in-tree competitors.

I do have strong technical objections: distributions really want to 
standardize on as few Linux internal virtualization APIs as 
possible, so splintering it just because /bin/cp is easy to do is 
bad.

If virtio pulls even with vbus's performance and vbus has no 
advantages over virtio i do NAK vbus on that basis. Lets stop the 
sillyness before it starts hurting users. Coming up with something 
better is good, but doing an incompatible, duplicative framework 
just for NIH reasons is stupid and should be resisted.

People dont get to add a new sys_read_v2() without strong technical 
arguments either - the same holds for our Linux internal driver 
abstractions, APIs and ABIs.

	ingo
--
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/