On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:28:08AM -0800, Ira W. Snyder wrote: > On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:34:44PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote: > > On 12/23/09 1:15 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:36, Gregory Haskins > > > <gregory.haskins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> On 12/22/09 2:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > >>> * Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >>>> Actually, these patches have nothing to do with the KVM folks. [...] > > >>> > > >>> That claim is curious to me - the AlacrityVM host > > >> > > >> It's quite simple, really. These drivers support accessing vbus, and > > >> vbus is hypervisor agnostic. In fact, vbus isn't necessarily even > > >> hypervisor related. It may be used anywhere where a Linux kernel is the > > >> "io backend", which includes hypervisors like AlacrityVM, but also > > >> userspace apps, and interconnected physical systems as well. So focus on interconnecting physical systems I think would be one way for vbus to stop conflicting with KVM. If drivers for such systems appear I expect that relevant (hypervisor-agnostic) vbus bits would be very uncontroversial. This would not be the first technology to make the jump from attempting to be a PCI replacement to being an interconnect btw, I think infiniband did this as well. -- MST -- 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
