This patch set contains a set of virtualization transports for the 9p file
system intended to provide a mechanism for guests to access a portion of the
hosts name space without having to go through a virtualized network.
Shared memory based transports are provided for lguest using a variation
From: Latchesar Ionkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This adds a shared memory transport for a synthetic 9p device for
paravirtualized file system support under KVM/QEMU.
Signed-off-by: Latchesar Ionkov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Documentation/filesystems
From: Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED](none)
This adds a transport to 9p for communicating between guest and host
domains on lguest. Currently, the host-side proxies the communication to a
socket connected to the actual server. The transport is based heavily on
the existing console code
From: Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED](none)
This patch abstracts out the interfaces to underlying transports so that
new transports can be added as modules. This should also allow kernel
configuration of transports without ifdef-hell.
Signed-off-by: Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED
From: Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED](none)
This adds a 9p generic shared memory transport which has been used to
communicate between Dom0 and DomU under Xen as part of the Libra and PROSE
projects (http://www.research.ibm.com/prose).
Parts of the code are a horrible hack, but may
On 8/28/07, Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 28 August 2007, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
This adds a shared memory transport for a synthetic 9p device for
paravirtualized file system support under KVM/QEMU.
Nice driver. I'm hoping we can do a virtio driver using a similar
On 5/23/07, Carsten Otte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, plan9 does provide answers to a lot of above requirements.
However, it does not provide capabilities for shared memory and it
adds extra complexity. It's been designed to solve a different problem.
As a point of clarification, plan9
On 5/23/07, Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 23 May 2007, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
On 5/23/07, Carsten Otte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, plan9 does provide answers to a lot of above requirements.
However, it does not provide capabilities for shared memory
On 5/23/07, Eric Van Hensbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/23/07, Arnd Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 23 May 2007, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
On 5/23/07, Carsten Otte [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, plan9 does provide answers to a lot of above requirements
On 5/22/07, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
On 5/22/07, Christoph Hellwig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In case of KVM no one is speaking of pure PV.
Why not? It seems worthwhile to come up with something that can cover
the whole spectrum instead
On 5/16/07, Anthony Liguori [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What do you think about a socket interface? I'm not sure how discovery
would work yet, but there are a few PV socket implementations for Xen at
the moment.
From a functional standpoint I don't have a huge problem with it,
particularly if
11 matches
Mail list logo
