Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 08/19/2009 02:40 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>>>>> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
>>>>> connector, you are happy?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>            
>>>> This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> Any why not?  (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over virtio-pci)
>>>
>>>        
>> Because virtio-net will have gained nothing that it didn't have before.
>>      
> ??
>
> *) ABI is virtio-pci compatible, as you like
>    

That's not a gain, that's staying in the same place.

> *) fast-path is in-kernel, as we all like
>    

That's not a gain as we have vhost-net (sure, in development, but your 
proposed backend isn't even there yet).

> *) model is in vbus so it would work in all environments that vbus supports.
>    

The ABI can be virtio-pci compatible or it can be vbus-comaptible.  How 
can it be both?  The ABIs are different.

Note that if you had submitted a virtio-net backend I'd have asked you 
to strip away all the management / bus layers and we'd have ended up 
with vhost-net.

>>>> virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390.  Transporting
>>>> virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything over
>>>> directly transporting virtio over that something else.
>>>>
>>>>          
>>> This is not what I am advocating.
>>>
>>>
>>>        
>> What are you advocating?  As far as I can tell your virtio-vbus
>> connector plus the vbus-kvm connector is just that.
>>      
> I wouldn't classify it anything like that, no.  Its just virtio over vbus.
>    

We're in a loop.  Doesn't virtio over vbus need a virtio-vbus 
connector?  and doesn't vbus need a connector to talk to the hypervisor?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function