On 01/09/13 03:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote: >> I'd much rather see a hypervisor neutral solution than a hypervisor >> specific one which this certainly is. > > Objectively speaking neither solution is hypervisor neutral as there are > hypervisors that implement either VMCI or virtio or something else > entirely.
Indeed. vmchannel is tied to virtio like vsock is tied to vmci. > Our position is that VSOCK feature set is more complete and that it > should be possible to use transports other than VMCI for VSOCK traffic, > should interested parties implement them, Implementing other transports requires restructing vsock (and vmci) first as the current vsock code is not a hypervisor neutral service. cheers, Gerd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
