On 9/1/07, Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 13:52 -0500, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> > The lguest and kvm transports are functional, but we are still working out
> > remaining bugs and need to spend some time focusing on performance issues.
>
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 hopin
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
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
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 consol
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]>
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 of
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:
> > > >
> > &g
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.
> > &g
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, p
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.
> >>
> >>
> &
On 5/22/07, Christoph Hellwig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't think we were talking about the general case, I thought we
> > were discussing the PV case.
> >
>
> 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 w
On 5/22/07, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anthony Liguori wrote:
> >>
> >> In a PV environment why not just pass an initial cookie/hash/whatever
> >> as a command-line argument/register/memory-space to the underlying
> >> kernel?
> >>
> >
> > You can't pass a command line argument to Wind
On 5/21/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ron minnich wrote:
> > OK, so what are we doing here? We're using a PCI abstraction, as a
> > common abstraction,which is not common really, because we don't have a
> > common abstraction? So we describe all these non-pci resources with a
> >
On 5/16/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> >
> > From a functional standpoint I don't have a huge problem with it,
> > particularly if its more of a pure socket and not something that tries
> > to look like a TCP/I
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,
particula
On 5/11/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> There's definitely a conversation to have here. There are going to be a
> lot of small devices that would benefit from a common transport
> mechanism. Someone mentioned a PV entropy device on LKML. A
> host=>guest filesystem is another c
On 5/11/07, Anthony Liguori <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > cpu% ls /net/ether0
> > /net/ether0/0
> > /net/ether0/1
> > /net/ether0/2
> > /net/ether0/addr
> > /net/ether0/clone
> > /net/ether0/ifstats
> > /net/ether0/stats
> >
>
> This smells a bit like XenStore which I think most will agree was an
18 matches
Mail list logo
