* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't have any technical objections to vbus/venet (I had in the > past re interrupts but I believe you've addressed them), and it > appears to perform very well. However I still think we should > address virtio's shortcomings (as Michael is doing) rather than > create a competitor. We have enough external competition, we > don't need in-tree competitors. I do have strong technical objections: distributions really want to standardize on as few Linux internal virtualization APIs as possible, so splintering it just because /bin/cp is easy to do is bad. If virtio pulls even with vbus's performance and vbus has no advantages over virtio i do NAK vbus on that basis. Lets stop the sillyness before it starts hurting users. Coming up with something better is good, but doing an incompatible, duplicative framework just for NIH reasons is stupid and should be resisted. People dont get to add a new sys_read_v2() without strong technical arguments either - the same holds for our Linux internal driver abstractions, APIs and ABIs. ingo -- 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
