On 05/25/2010 08:31 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
A protocol based mechanism has the advantage of being more robust in
the face of poorly written block backends so if it's possible to make
it perform as well as a plugin, it's a preferable approach.
May be hard due to difficulty of exposing guest memory.
If someone did a series to add plugins, I would expect a very strong
argument as to why a shared memory mechanism was not possible or at
least plausible.
I'm not sure I understand why shared memory is such a bad thing wrt
KVM. Can you elaborate? Is it simply a matter of fork()?
Plugins that just expose chunks of QEMU internal state directly (like
BlockDriver) are a really bad idea IMHO.
Also, we don't want to expose all of the qemu API. We should default
the visibility attribute to "hidden" and expose only select functions,
perhaps under their own interface. And no inlines.
Yeah, if we did plugins, this would be a key requirement.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
--
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
