Avi Kivity wrote: >> I think this is likely going to be needed regardless. I also think >> the tap compatibility suggestion would simplify the consumption of >> this in userspace. > > What about veth pairs? Does veth support GSO and checksum offload? >> I'd like some time to look at get_state/set_state ioctl()s along with >> dirty tracking support. It's a much better model for live migration >> IMHO. > > My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at > least event proxying) for non-MSI guests. I avoided suggested ring proxying because I didn't want to suggest that merging should be contingent on it. Regards, Anthony Liguori _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
