On 08/06/2009 07:55 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
Based on this, I will continue my efforts surrounding to use of vbus including its use to accelerate KVM for AlacrityVM. If I can find a way to do this in such a way that KVM upstream finds acceptable, I would be very happy and will work towards whatever that compromise might be. OTOH, if the KVM community is set against the concept of a generalized/shared backend, and thus wants to use some other approach that does not involve vbus, that is fine too. Choice is one of the great assets of open source, eh? :)
KVM upstream (me) doesn't have much say regarding vbus. I am not a networking expert and I'm not the virtio or networking stack maintainer, so I'm not qualified to accept or reject the code. What I am able to do is make sure that kvm can efficiently work with any driver/device stack; this is why ioeventfd/irqfd were merged.
I still think vbus is a duplication of effort; I understand vbus has larger scope than virtio, but I still think these problems could have been solved within the existing virtio stack.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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
