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

[Gregory Haskins]

>>> On 8/19/2009 at  1:48 AM, in message <4A8B9241.20300@xxxxxxxxxx>, Avi Kivity
<avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> On 08/19/2009 08:36 AM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>> If virtio net in guest could be improved instead, everyone would
>>> benefit.
>>>      
>> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
>> connector, you are happy?
>>    
> 
> This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.

Any why not?  (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over virtio-pci)


> 
>>> I am doing this, and I wish more people would join.  Instead,
>>> you change ABI in a incompatible way.
>>>      
>> Only by choice of my particular connector.  The ABI is a function of the
>> connector design.  So one such model is to terminate the connector in
>> qemu, and surface the resulting objects as PCI devices.  I choose not to
>> use this particular design for my connector that I am pushing upstream
>> because I am of the opinion that I can do better by terminating it in
>> the guest directly as a PV optimized bus.  However, both connectors can
>> theoretically coexist peacefully.
>>    
> 
> virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390.  Transporting 
> virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything over 
> directly transporting virtio over that something else.

This is not what I am advocating.

Kind Regards,
-Greg





--
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/