* Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 08/17/2009 05:16 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >>> My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be better > >>> off if everyone contributed to enhancing virtio, which already has > >>> widely deployed guest drivers and non-Linux guest support. > >>> > >>> It may have merit if it is proven that it is technically superior to > >>> virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I mean > >>> design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> The design is very different, so hopefully I can start to convince you > >> why it might be interesting. > >> > > > > We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out > > specific differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll > > be glad to hear (and steal) them though. > > You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh? > > Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it > apparently falls on deaf ears. I'm trying to find the relevant discussion. The link you gave in the previous mail: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408 does not offer any design analysis of vbus versus virtio, and why the only fix to virtio is vbus. It offers a comparison and a blanket statement that vbus is superior but no arguments. (If you've already explained in a past thread then please give me an URL to that reply if possible, or forward me that prior reply. Thanks!) 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
