Re: [RFC PATCH 19/28] lkl tools: host lib: virtio block device

[Octavian Purdila]

On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Richard Weinberger
<richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Octavian Purdila
> <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Host independent implementation for virtio block devices. The host
>> dependent part of the host library must provide an implementation for
>> lkl_dev_block_ops.
>>
>> Disks can be added to the LKL configuration via lkl_disk_add(), a new
>> LKL application API.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  tools/lkl/include/lkl.h      |  20 ++++++++
>>  tools/lkl/include/lkl_host.h |  21 ++++++++
>>  tools/lkl/lib/virtio_blk.c   | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  3 files changed, 157 insertions(+)
>>  create mode 100644 tools/lkl/lib/virtio_blk.c
>

Hi Richard,

> Can you please outline what the differences between this driver and
> UML's block driver are?
>

LKL actually uses the standard virtio block driver, it does not
implement a new (Linux kernel) driver.

This patch is the implementation for the host side device (in virtio's
spec lingo).

Or maybe I misunderstood your question?

> While UML and LKL have different goals they could at least share some drivers.
> UML also has networking drivers you could reuse.
> Maybe it would make sense to integrate LKL completely into arch/um if
> we find a nice way
> to combine them.
> CONFIG_UML_LIBRARY, hmm?
> Would be a nice opportunity to clear away some dung from arch/um and
> refactor it. :-)
>

Yeah, that would be nice :) I think the key part is to define the
right host operations (in LKL terms) that can support UML. I'll have
to spend some time to study UML's internals a bit to see if that would
be doable.
--
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/