>>> On 8/19/2009 at 1:48 AM, in message <4a8b9241.20...@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> 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 kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
