On 12/23/09 5:22 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > There was no attempt by Gregory to improve virtio-net. If you truly do not understand why your statement is utterly wrong at this point in the discussion, I feel sorry for you. If you are trying to be purposely disingenuous, you should be ashamed of yourself. In any case, your statement is demonstrably bogus, but you should already know this given that we talked about at least several times. To refresh your memory: http://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/17428/ In case its not blatantly clear, which I would hope it would be to anyone that understands the problem space: What that patch would do is allow an unmodified virtio-net to bridge to a vbus based virtio-net backend. (Also note that this predates vhost-net by months (the date in that thread is 4/9/2009) in case you are next going to try to argue that it does nothing over vhost-net). This would mean that virtio-net would gain most of the benefits I have been advocating (fewer exits, cheaper exits, concurrent execution, etc). So this would very much improve virtio-net indeed, given how poorly the current backend was performing. I tried to convince the team to help me build it out to completion on multiple occasions, but that request was answered with "sorry, we are doing our own thing instead". You can say that you didn't like my approach, since that is a subjective opinion. But to say that I didn't attempt to improve it is a flat out wrong, and I do not appreciate it. -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
