OK, so what are we doing here? We're using a PCI abstraction, as a common abstraction,which is not common really, because we don't have a common abstraction? So we describe all these non-pci resources with a pci abstraction?
I don't get it at all. I really think the resource interface idea I mentioned, which is borrowed from Plan 9, makes a whole lot more sense. IBM Austin has already shown it in practice in the papers I referenced. It can work. A memory channel at the bottom, with a resource sharing protocol (9p) above it, and then you describe your resources via names and a simple file-directory model. Note that PCI sort of tries to do this tree model, but it's all binary, and, as noted, it's hardly universal. All of this is trivially exported over a network, so the use of shared memory channels in no way rules out network access. Plan 9 exports devices over the network routinely. If you're using a PCI abstraction, something has gone badly wrong I think. thanks ron ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
