On 12/27/09 8:27 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/27/2009 03:18 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> 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. >> > > Then we're back to square one. A nice demonstration of vbus > flexibility, but no help for virtio. > No, where we are is at the point where we demonstrate that your original statement that I did nothing to improve virtio was wrong. -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
