Chris Wright wrote:
* Anthony Liguori (aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
The userspace configuration aspects of the current implementation of
vmchannel are pretty annoying. Moreover, we would like to make use of
something like vmchannel in a kernel driver and I fear that it's going
to be difficult to do that.
What's the use for vmchannel from kernel driver?
Well, it doesn't exactly have to be vmchannel, but the desire is to have
the management tools to be able to communicate directly with a kernel
driver. We could certainly just use virtio and route it through QEMU to
the management tool. It would be useful to just use vmchannel though.
Thoughts?
Heh, works for me ;-) Last time I suggested an fs it got shot down due to
the burden it puts on the guest implementation (notably windows and
other guests and ease of adding a new fs implementation).
Doesn't directly solve addressing (IOW, easy to do with hierarchical
namespace, but if vmchannel ever talks guest-to-guest...). Clearly not
a huge issue.
Should handle the reliable messaging bit (one big push for using tcp),
and has advantage of being a structured protocol.
Has the similar ABI issue that we see in Linux with sysfs, namely it's
easy to screw up...but that is manageable.
BTW, what ever happened to just using a serial device (granted needs
some protocol layered on top...)?
I think you end up having a lot of the same issues with respect to
making it transparent to the guest. You could still do 9p over serial
and still use a synthetic file system in the guest. In fact, this is a
pretty reasonable thing to do for older kernel guests and even Windows.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
thanks,
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
