Hi Christoph, On Wed, 2009-09-09 at 16:08 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 05:12:26PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Alok Kataria wrote: > >> I see your point, but the ring logic or the ABI that we use to > >> communicate between the hypervisor and guest is not shared between our > >> storage and network drivers. As a result, I don't see any benefit of > >> separating out this ring handling mechanism, on the contrary it might > >> just add some overhead of translating between various layers for our > >> SCSI driver. > >> > > > > But if you separate out the ring logic, it allows the scsi logic to be > > shared by other paravirtual device drivers. This is significant and > > important from a Linux point of view. > > As someone who has been hacking on a virtio scsi prototype I don't think > it's a good idea. Can I take a look at your work on virtio scsi ? > The vmware driver is a horrible design and I don't > think it should be merged. Can you be more specific ? What problems do you see in the driver or the ABI. > Besides beeing a ugly driver and ABI we > really should not support this kind of closed protocol development. > Alok _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
