Re: [PATCH/RFC 7/9] Virtual network guest device driver

Eric Van Hensbergen
2007-05-22T16:25:34Z

On 5/22/07, Anthony Liguori <anthony-rdkfGonbjUSkNkDKm+mE6A@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
> > On 5/22/07, Christoph Hellwig <hch-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >> In case of KVM no one is speaking of pure PV.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Why not? It seems worthwhile to come up with something that can cover
> > the whole spectrum instead of having different hypervisors (and
> > interfaces).
> >
>
> Because in a few years, almost everyone will have hardware capable of
> doing full virtualization so why bother with pure PV.
>

No matter what the capabilities, full device emulation is always going
to be wasteful. Just because I have the hardware to run Vista,
doesn't mean I should run Vista.

> > Maybe my view is skewed because I don't care to run windows.
> >
>
> It's not just windows. There are a lot of people who want to use
> virtualization to run RHEL2 or even RH9. Backporting PV to these
> kernels is a huge effort.
>

I'm not opposed to supporting emulation environments, just don't make
a large pile of crap the default like Xen -- and having to integrate
PCI probing code in my guest domains is a large pile of crap.

-eric