> From: David Miller [mailto:davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 1:45 > To: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > From: Dexuan Cui <decui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 07:09:41 +0000 > > > I googled "S390 hypervisor socket" but didn't find anything related (I think). > > That would be net/iucv/ Thanks for the info! I'll look into this. > There's also VMWare's stuff under net/vmw_vsock > > It's just absolutely rediculous to make a new hypervisor socket > interface over and over again, so much code duplication and > replication. I agree on this principle of avoiding duplication. However my feeling is: IMHO different hypervisor sockets were developed independently without coordination and the implementation details could be so different that an enough generic framework/infrastructure is difficult, e.g., at first glance, it looks AF_IUCV is quite different from AF_VSOCK and this might explain why AF_VSOCK wasn't built on AF_IUCV(?). I'll dig more into AF_IUCV, AF_VSOCK and AF_HYPERV and figure out what is the best direction I should go. Thanks, -- Dexuan _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
