Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > So, what you're saying is: > > 1. assuming there's going to be a vast number of miscellaneous devices > 2. it would be best if there were one per device rather than one per > hypervisor per device > 3. so we'd have one linux device driver > > But this implies that the work is just pushed off into all the > hypervisors to support this new device over the generic interface; > there's no overall reduction of code or complexity, other than making > "wc" on the kernel source smaller. > Sure there is, assuming you deal about heterogenous clients. I'm not sure Xen is (although that is, as far as I understand, being remedied), which might explain your different perspective. Consider that this may not even be about Linux -- having these standard devices would enable, say, 'doze device drivers to be written and shared. > That said, something like USB is probably the best bet for this kind of > low-performance device. I think. Not that I really know anything about > USB. USB is evil in the extreme for this kind of stuff. Although in theory you can have any HCI you want, in practice the ones that are implemented requires a very complex framework for full compatiblity. -hpa _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
