Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices?

[Cornelia Huck]

On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:26:52 +0200,
Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> > 
> > On s390, it would be more than strangeness. There's no implementation
> > of PCI at all, someone would have to cook it up - and it wouldn't have
> > any use beyond those special devices. Since there isn't any bus type
> > that is available on *all* architectures, a generic "virtual" bus with
> > very simple probing seems much saner...
> 
> You just have to change all the distribution installers then. 
> Ok I suppose on s390 that's not that big issue because there are not
> that many for s390. But for x86 there exist quite a lot. I suppose
> it's easier to change it in the kernel.

Huh? I don't follow you here. Why should this be easier for s390 vs.
x86? (And since there seems to be a trend to use HAL as a device
discovery tool recently: A new bus type is easy enough to add there.)

And I really think we should have a clean design in the kernel instead
of trying to wedge virtual devices into a known system. Exposing
virtual devices (which may be handled totally differently) as PCI
devices just seems hackish to me.
-
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/