Ingo Molnar wrote: > * 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!) Sorry, it was a series of long threads from quite a while back. I will see if I can find some references, but it might be easier to just start fresh (see the last reply I sent). Kind Regards, -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
