On Sat, Nov 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Richard Weinberger <richard.weinberger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Octavian Purdila > <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Host independent implementation for virtio block devices. The host >> dependent part of the host library must provide an implementation for >> lkl_dev_block_ops. >> >> Disks can be added to the LKL configuration via lkl_disk_add(), a new >> LKL application API. >> >> Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> tools/lkl/include/lkl.h | 20 ++++++++ >> tools/lkl/include/lkl_host.h | 21 ++++++++ >> tools/lkl/lib/virtio_blk.c | 116 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 3 files changed, 157 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 tools/lkl/lib/virtio_blk.c > Hi Richard, > Can you please outline what the differences between this driver and > UML's block driver are? > LKL actually uses the standard virtio block driver, it does not implement a new (Linux kernel) driver. This patch is the implementation for the host side device (in virtio's spec lingo). Or maybe I misunderstood your question? > While UML and LKL have different goals they could at least share some drivers. > UML also has networking drivers you could reuse. > Maybe it would make sense to integrate LKL completely into arch/um if > we find a nice way > to combine them. > CONFIG_UML_LIBRARY, hmm? > Would be a nice opportunity to clear away some dung from arch/um and > refactor it. :-) > Yeah, that would be nice :) I think the key part is to define the right host operations (in LKL terms) that can support UML. I'll have to spend some time to study UML's internals a bit to see if that would be doable. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
