On 27.01.2013, at 15:07, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Hi All, >> >> How about having a generic Virtio-based machine for emulating a virtual >> desktop ? >> >> I know folks have already thought about this and probably also tried >> something or other on this front but, it will be good to know the downsides. >> >> Virtio-desktop can be a separate specification describing a virtual >> desktop. >> Of-course we cannot avoid few architecture dependent virtual devices in but >> the Virtio-desktop specification will try to keep minimum possible >> architecture dependent devices. > > There's a lot of reasons why a pure PV machine type is a bad idea. Lots > of people have enumerated them in this thread. > > But let me mention some things that I think we don't have covered today > with PV: > > - Graphics. Yes, I know QXL exists but it's (a) dependent on PCI (b) > lacks the ability to gracefully degrade making it hopelessly tied to > spice. There was a QXL-on-virtio port in the works a while ago IIRC: > - Input. PS/2 mouse provides relative input which sucks in guests. > For absolute input, we have VMMouse which is x86-specific, USB > tablets (which are expensive to emulate) or the spice mouse which is > intimately tied to the full Spice stack. I thought the USB tablet is ok today thanks to auto-suspend of the bus? Or was that only with ehci? > > - Guest interaction. Copy/paste, drag and drop, etc. In theory this > is covered in spice agents but it's all again hopelessly tied to > Spice which makes it non-portable. - Keyboard. When running with VNC, the 3 stacks involved in converting keyboard layouts back and forth are really confusing to users. > So there's good work todo but it's almost certainly in working with the > Spice community to try to make what they already have more accessible to > non-x86 architectures. Hooray :) Alex _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm