Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driverobjects

From: Avi Kivity
Date: Wed Aug 19 2009 - 07:50:22 EST


On 08/19/2009 02:40 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:

So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
connector, you are happy?


This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.

Any why not? (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over virtio-pci)

Because virtio-net will have gained nothing that it didn't have before.
??

*) ABI is virtio-pci compatible, as you like

That's not a gain, that's staying in the same place.

*) fast-path is in-kernel, as we all like

That's not a gain as we have vhost-net (sure, in development, but your proposed backend isn't even there yet).

*) model is in vbus so it would work in all environments that vbus supports.

The ABI can be virtio-pci compatible or it can be vbus-comaptible. How can it be both? The ABIs are different.

Note that if you had submitted a virtio-net backend I'd have asked you to strip away all the management / bus layers and we'd have ended up with vhost-net.

virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390. Transporting
virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything over
directly transporting virtio over that something else.

This is not what I am advocating.


What are you advocating? As far as I can tell your virtio-vbus
connector plus the vbus-kvm connector is just that.
I wouldn't classify it anything like that, no. Its just virtio over vbus.

We're in a loop. Doesn't virtio over vbus need a virtio-vbus connector? and doesn't vbus need a connector to talk to the hypervisor?

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/