----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> My point is that UML and LKL should try to do use the same concept/code >> regarding virtio. At the end of day both use virtual devices which use >> facilities from the host. >> If this is really not possible it needs a good explanation. > > I think it isn't possible, unless you use vhost-user over a unix domain > socket internally to talk between the kernel (virtio_uml) and hypervisor > (device) components. > > In virtio_uml, the device implementation is assumed to be a separate > process with a vhost-user connection. Here in LKL, the virtio device is > part of the "hypervisor", i.e. in the same process. Exactly, currently UML and LKL solve same things differently, but do we need to? If we fail to agree on such a high level I might make sense to reevaluate to option of not merging UML and LKL at all. But this is beyond my decisional power and something I'd like to avoid. Thanks, //richard
