On Wed, 2007-11-21 at 09:13 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Where the device is implemented is an implementation detail that should > be hidden from the guest, isn't that one of the strengths of > virtualization? Two examples: a file-based block device implemented in > qemu gives you fancy file formats with encryption and compression, while > the same device implemented in the kernel gives you a low-overhead path > directly to a zillion-disk SAN volume. Or a user-level network device > capable of running with the slirp stack and no permissions vs. the > kernel device running copyless most of the time and using a dma engine > for the rest but requiring you to be good friends with the admin. > > The user should expect zero reconfigurations moving a VM from one model > to the other.
I think that is pretty insightful, and indeed, is probably the only reason we would ever consider using a virtio based driver. But is this really a virtualization problem, and is virtio the right place to solve it? Doesn't I/O hotplug with multipathing or NIC teaming provide the same infrastructure in a way that is useful in more than just a virtualization context? Zach - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
