On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 16:27 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > virtio is a stable ABI. > > > However, theres still the possibility we can make this work in an ABI > > friendly way with cap-bits, or other such features. For instance, the > > virtio-net driver could register both with pci and vbus-proxy and > > instantiate a device with a slightly different ops structure for each or > > something. Alternatively we could write a host-side shim to expose vbus > > devices as pci devices or something like that. > > > > Sounds complicated... > IMO, it doesn't sound anymore complicated than making virtio support the concepts already provided by vbus/venet-tap driver. Isn't there already precedent for alternative approaches co-existing and having the users decide which is the most appropriate for their use case? Switching drivers in order to improve latency for a certain class of applications would seem like something latency sensitive users would be more than willing to do. I'd like to point out 2 things. Greg has offered help in moving virtio into the vbus infrastructure. The vbus infrastructure is a large part of what is being proposed here. -- 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
