From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:33:01 -0400 Message-ID: <4611768D.1080801@garzik.org> References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> <46116E12.5070206@goop.org> <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org To: Andi Kleen Cc: Virtualization Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , mathiasen@gmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Andi Kleen wrote: >> How would that work in the case where virtualized guests don't have a >> visible PCI bus, and the virtual environment doesn't pretend to emulate >> a PCI bus? > = > If they emulated one with the appropiate device = > then distribution driver auto probing would just work transparently for t= hem. Yes, but, ideally with paravirtualization you should be able to avoid = the overhead of emulating many major classes of device (storage, = network, RNG, etc.) by developing a low-overhead passthrough interface = that does not involve PCI at all. Jeff From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965953AbXDBVeF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:34:05 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965954AbXDBVeF (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:34:05 -0400 Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:58204 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965953AbXDBVeD (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 17:34:03 -0400 Message-ID: <4611768D.1080801@garzik.org> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:33:01 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "H. Peter Anvin" , Virtualization Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , mathiasen@gmail.com Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> <46116E12.5070206@goop.org> <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -4.3 (----) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.1.8 on srv5.dvmed.net summary: Content analysis details: (-4.3 points, 5.0 required) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: >> How would that work in the case where virtualized guests don't have a >> visible PCI bus, and the virtual environment doesn't pretend to emulate >> a PCI bus? > > If they emulated one with the appropiate device > then distribution driver auto probing would just work transparently for them. Yes, but, ideally with paravirtualization you should be able to avoid the overhead of emulating many major classes of device (storage, network, RNG, etc.) by developing a low-overhead passthrough interface that does not involve PCI at all. Jeff