2010/11/29 Paul Brook <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> Could you formulate the constraints so developers are aware of them in >> >> the future and can protect the codebase. How about expanding the >> >> Kemari wiki pages? >> > >> > If you like the idea above, I'm happy to make the list also on >> > the wiki page. >> >> Here's a different question: what requirements must an emulated device >> meet in order to be added to the Kemari supported whitelist? That's >> what I want to know so that I don't break existing devices and can add >> new devices that work with Kemari :). > > Why isn't it completely device agnostic? i.e. if a device has to care about > Kemari at all (of vice-versa) then IMO you're doing it wrong. The whole point > of the internal block/net APIs is that they isolate the host implementation > details from the device emulation. You're right "theoretically". But what I've learned so far, there are cases like virtio-net and e1000 woks but virtio-blk doesn't. "Theoretically", any emulated device should be able to get into the whitelist if the event-tap is properly implemented but sometimes it doesn't seem to be that simple. To answer Stefan's question, there shouldn't be any requirement for a device, but must be tested with Kemari. If it doesn't work correctly, the problems must be fixed before adding to the list. Yoshi > > Paul > -- > 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 > -- 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
