On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 03:07:46PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/14/2012 01:11 PM, Wen Congyang wrote: > > > > > > I don't think we want to use the driver. Instead, have a small piece of > > > code that resets the device and pushes out a string (the panic message?) > > > without any interrupts etc. > > > > > > It's still going to be less reliable than a hypercall, I agree. > > > > Do you still want to use complicated and less reliable way? > > Are you willing to try it out and see how complicated it really is? > > While it's more complicated, it's also more flexible. You can > communicate the panic message, whether the guest is attempting a kdump > and its own recovery or whether it wants the host to do it, etc., you > can communicate less severe failures like oopses. > hypercall can take arguments to achieve the same. > > I think the other ones prefer to touch the hypervisor. > > I understand the sentiment. Your patches are simple and easy. But my > feeling is that the kernel has become too complicated already and I'm > looking for ways to limit changes. > Using virtio-serial will not reduce kernel complexity. Quite contrary since code that will use virtio-serial will be more complicated. -- Gleb. -- 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
