On 15/01/16 17:44, Sinan Kaya wrote: >>> [...] >> You may want to drop the "hypervisor" designation, BTW, because this has >> no real connection to virtualisation. >> > > Would you use host/guest relationship? Not even that. This is a host/user relationship, as VFIO is in no way virtualisation specific. It just gives you a way to make a device accessible to userspace. KVM is just a specialised instance of a more generic problem. > >>> >>> Once the guest machine is shutdown, VFIO driver still owns the channel device. It can >>> assign the device to another guest machine. >>> >>>> - Does the HYP side requires any context switch (and how is that done)? >>> No communication is needed. >>> >>>> - What makes it safe? >>> No communication is needed. >>> >>>> >>>> Without any of this information (and pointer to the code to back it up), >>>> I'm very reluctant to take any of this. >>> >>> Please let me know what exactly is not clear. >>> >>> You don't write a virtualization driver for 8139too driver. The driver works whether it is running in the >>> guest machine or the hypervisor. >> >> Exactly. No hypervisor code needed whatsoever. So please get rid of this >> hypervisor nonsense! ;-) >> > > I need the management driver for administrative purposes and common initialization. > I like the split SW design as it follows the HW design too. I have no problem with the split design (whatever floats your boat), more with the terminology which I find very confusing. It would be a lot better if you stuck with management (host) and client (user), or some other general terminology. Thanks, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
