On 01/09/13 03:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote: >> I'd much rather see a hypervisor neutral solution than a hypervisor >> specific one which this certainly is. > > Objectively speaking neither solution is hypervisor neutral as there are > hypervisors that implement either VMCI or virtio or something else > entirely. Indeed. vmchannel is tied to virtio like vsock is tied to vmci. > Our position is that VSOCK feature set is more complete and that it > should be possible to use transports other than VMCI for VSOCK traffic, > should interested parties implement them, Implementing other transports requires restructing vsock (and vmci) first as the current vsock code is not a hypervisor neutral service. cheers, Gerd _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
