Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hmm... I clearly jumped the gun, assuming consensus was already reached. >> I have put these patches *back* into pending-rebases, and they will not >> be merged this merge window. > > Thanks. > > What do you think about creating some virtio-level wrappers for the > vringh handlers? > > I don't think we're going to stop with caif as the only vringh user, > and it could be nice if we follow the virtio spirit of decoupling the > drivers from the low level implementation. It sure did prove itself > when the remoteproc use cases started showing up, and it's neat. The problem space is a bit different. My immediate concern is getting vhost (and thus vhost_net/blk) to use vringh: I wanted to unify the in-userspace and in-kernelspace ring implementations. We don't have that issue in virtqueue.c. vhost is (will be) the higher abstraction for in-userspace rings, perhaps we want an equivalent for in-kernelspace rings. I'm happy to look at patches, but I don't immediately see what it would look like... Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
