> I have no desire to change the 'genericness' of sockets.. just the > opposite - i wish to > introduce the notion that sockets (can be) completely generic (when > offloaded) as far as > the guest is concerned. I suppose my concern is that you don't want to design for a specific offload device, your offload might change but the view from the application side should not differ. > > This guest only view means you can't use the abstraction for local > > sockets too. > > > > To be honest, the way we're attempting to integrate is in such a way > that you *could* > offload AF_LOCAL sockets... but that world gets a bit too much like > the 'Twilight Zone' > for my current linkings.. Until you want to be able to have a pair of apps talking that may or may not be on different systems and may or may not be on a vm host at all, at which point having the same acceleration between them (a null accelerator so to speak) would avoid having to add extra paths to the apps. > > And yes there is still the complicated cases such as 'the routing table > > has changed from vitual host to via siberia now what' but I don't believe > > your proposal addresses that either. > > Can you be more specific? If you mean solving the 'keeping your tcp connections > open to non virtual endpoints across a migration (or whatever)' then > no it doesn't :) That was my assumption. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
