Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:57:27AM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com)
> wrote:
>
>>> Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based
>>> userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not
>>> differ too much from what you have with special socket family, but at
>>> least it does not duplicate existing functionality of
>>> userspace-kernelspace communications.
>>>
>>>
>> I implemented vmchannel using connector initially (the downside is that
>> message can be dropped). Is this more expectable for upstream? The
>> implementation was 300 lines of code.
>>
>
> Hard to tell, it depends on implementation. But if things are good, I
> have no objections as connector maintainer :)
>
> Messages in connector in particular and netlink in general are only
> dropped, when receiving buffer is full (or when there is no memory), you
> can tune buffer size to match virtual queue size or vice versa.
>
>
Gleb was aware of that and it's not a problem since all of the
anticipated usages may
drop msgs (guest statistics, cut&paste, mouse movements, single sign on
commands, etc).
Service that would need reliability could use basic acks.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
