On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:06:39AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > 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? AFAIK, no. But again, improving veth is a separate project :) >>> 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. Happily, the proposed interface supports is. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
