Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:57:27AM +0200, Gleb Natapov (gleb@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > >>> Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based >>> userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not >>> differ too much from what you have with special socket family, but at >>> least it does not duplicate existing functionality of >>> userspace-kernelspace communications. >>> >>> >> I implemented vmchannel using connector initially (the downside is that >> message can be dropped). Is this more expectable for upstream? The >> implementation was 300 lines of code. >> > > Hard to tell, it depends on implementation. But if things are good, I > have no objections as connector maintainer :) > > Messages in connector in particular and netlink in general are only > dropped, when receiving buffer is full (or when there is no memory), you > can tune buffer size to match virtual queue size or vice versa. > > Gleb was aware of that and it's not a problem since all of the anticipated usages may drop msgs (guest statistics, cut&paste, mouse movements, single sign on commands, etc). Service that would need reliability could use basic acks. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
