On 12/27/09 4:15 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/23/2009 11:21 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> That said, you are still incorrect. With what I proposed, the model >> will run as an in-kernel vbus device, and no longer run in userspace. >> It would therefore improve virtio-net as I stated, much in the same >> way vhost-net or venet-tap do today. >> > > That can't work. virtio-net has its own ABI on top of virtio, for > example it prepends a header for TSO information. Maybe if you disable > all features it becomes compatible with venet, but that cripples it. > You are confused. The backend would be virtio-net specific, and would therefore understand the virtio-net ABI. It would support any feature of virtio-net as long as it was implemented and negotiated by both sides of the link. -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
