* Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:28:50AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > To me it feels the same as the distinction between vhost-kernel and qemu
> > backended virtio that we get in net and others - in principal it's just
> > another implementation.
>
> In net it's actually like this. Same -device, a different netdev.
>
> > A tricky part is guaranteeing the set of visible virtio features between
> > implementations; we have that problem when we use vhost-kernel and run
> > on a newer/older kernel and gain virtio features; the same will be true
> > with vhost-user implementations.
>
> That's not new but yes we need to work on this.
>
> > But this would make the structure of a vhost-user implementation quite
> > different.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Right. That's why I'm reluctant to just add a new device type that
> has special compatibility requirements.
Hmm but there's already another layer of hack^Wabstraction in there isn't there
-
there's already:
virtio-blk-pci
virtio-blk-device
created when the user specifies a virtio-blk device?
Dave
> > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > MST
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
> > >
> > --
> > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
>
--
Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
