From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755849AbZHQPJA (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:09:00 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755554AbZHQPJA (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:09:00 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:43467 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753886AbZHQPI7 (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:08:59 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:08:44 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Avi Kivity , alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects Message-ID: <20090817150844.GA3307@elte.hu> References: <20090814154125.26116.70709.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090814154308.26116.46980.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> <4A8954F0.3040402@gmail.com> <20090817142506.GB3602@elte.hu> <4A8971A8.2040102@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8971A8.2040102@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Gregory Haskins wrote: > Hi Ingo, > > 1) First off, let me state that I have made every effort to > propose this as a solution to integrate with KVM, the most recent > of which is April: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408 > > If you read through the various vbus related threads on LKML/KVM > posted this year, I think you will see that I made numerous polite > offerings to work with people on finding a common solution here, > including Michael. > > In the end, Michael decided that go a different route using some > of the ideas proposed in vbus + venet-tap to create vhost-net. > This is fine, and I respect his decision. But do not try to pin > "fracturing" on me, because I tried everything to avoid it. :) That's good. So if virtio is fixed to be as fast as vbus, and if there's no other techical advantages of vbus over virtio you'll be glad to drop vbus and stand behind virtio? Also, are you willing to help virtio to become faster? Or do you have arguments why that is impossible to do so and why the only possible solution is vbus? Avi says no such arguments were offered so far. Ingo