Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/19/2009 02:40 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> >>>>>> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant >>>>>> connector, you are happy? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Any why not? (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over >>>> virtio-pci) >>>> >>>> >>> Because virtio-net will have gained nothing that it didn't have before. >>> >> ?? >> >> *) ABI is virtio-pci compatible, as you like >> > > That's not a gain, that's staying in the same place. > >> *) fast-path is in-kernel, as we all like >> > > That's not a gain as we have vhost-net (sure, in development, but your > proposed backend isn't even there yet). > >> *) model is in vbus so it would work in all environments that vbus >> supports. >> > > The ABI can be virtio-pci compatible or it can be vbus-comaptible. How > can it be both? The ABIs are different. > > Note that if you had submitted a virtio-net backend I'd have asked you > to strip away all the management / bus layers and we'd have ended up > with vhost-net. Sigh... > >>>>> virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390. Transporting >>>>> virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything >>>>> over >>>>> directly transporting virtio over that something else. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> This is not what I am advocating. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> What are you advocating? As far as I can tell your virtio-vbus >>> connector plus the vbus-kvm connector is just that. >>> >> I wouldn't classify it anything like that, no. Its just virtio over >> vbus. >> > > We're in a loop. Doesn't virtio over vbus need a virtio-vbus > connector? and doesn't vbus need a connector to talk to the hypervisor? > No, it doesnt work like that. There is only one connector. Kind Regards, -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
