On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:26:52 +0200, Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On s390, it would be more than strangeness. There's no implementation > > of PCI at all, someone would have to cook it up - and it wouldn't have > > any use beyond those special devices. Since there isn't any bus type > > that is available on *all* architectures, a generic "virtual" bus with > > very simple probing seems much saner... > > You just have to change all the distribution installers then. > Ok I suppose on s390 that's not that big issue because there are not > that many for s390. But for x86 there exist quite a lot. I suppose > it's easier to change it in the kernel. Huh? I don't follow you here. Why should this be easier for s390 vs. x86? (And since there seems to be a trend to use HAL as a device discovery tool recently: A new bus type is easy enough to add there.) And I really think we should have a clean design in the kernel instead of trying to wedge virtual devices into a known system. Exposing virtual devices (which may be handled totally differently) as PCI devices just seems hackish to me. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
