On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 02:15 PM, Pekka Enberg wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi<stefanha@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > Introducing yet another non-standard and non-Linux interface doesn't
>> > help though. If there is no significant improvement over ivshmem then
>> > it makes sense to let ivshmem gain critical mass and more users
>> > instead of fragmenting the space.
>>
>> Look, I'm not going to require QEMU compatibility from tools/kvm
>> contributors. If you guys really feel that strongly about the
>> interface, then either
>>
>> - Get Rusty's "virtio spec pixie pee" for ivshmem
>
> It's not a virtio device (doesn't do dma). It does have a spec in
> qemu.git/docs/specs.
>
>> - Get the Linux driver merged to linux-next
>
> ivshmem uses uio, so it doesn't need an in-kernel driver, IIRC. Map your
> BAR from sysfs and go.
Right.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 2:30 PM, Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> - Help out David and Sasha to change interface
>>
>> But don't ask me to block clean code from inclusion to tools/kvm
>> because it doesn't have a QEMU-capable interface.
>
> A lot of thought has gone into the design and implementation of ivshmem.
> But don't let that stop you from merging clean code.
Thanks, I won't.
If you or other KVM folks want to have a say what goes into tools/kvm,
I'm happy to send you a pull request against kvm.git.
Anyway, Sasha thinks ivshmem is the way to go and that's good enough for me.
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
