Hi Stefan,
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It's obviously not competing. One thing you might want to consider is
>> making the guest interface compatible with ivshmem. Is there any reason
>> we shouldn't do that? I don't consider that a requirement, just nice to
>> have.
>
> The point of implementing the same interface as ivshmem is that users
> don't need to rejig guests or applications in order to switch between
> hypervisors. A different interface also prevents same-to-same
> benchmarks.
>
> There is little benefit to creating another virtual device interface
> when a perfectly good one already exists. The question should be: how
> is this shmem device different and better than ivshmem? If there is
> no justification then implement the ivshmem interface.
So which interface are we actually taking about? Userspace/kernel in the
guest or hypervisor/guest kernel?
Either way, while it would be nice to share the interface but it's not a
*requirement* for tools/kvm unless ivshmem is specified in the virtio
spec or the driver is in mainline Linux. We don't intend to require people
to implement non-standard and non-Linux QEMU interfaces. OTOH,
ivshmem would make the PCI ID problem go away.
David, Sasha, thoughts?
Pekka
--
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
