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

ron minnich
2007-05-22T15:31:48Z

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:
> >
> >>> I didn't think we were talking about the general case, I thought we
> >>> were discussing the PV case.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> 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.

I don't know, we could shoot for a clean, simple interface that makes
PV easy to integrate into any kernel. Pick a common underlying
abstraction for all resources.
Define a simple, efficient memory channel for the comms. Lay 9p over
it. Then take it from there for each device.

I agree, from the way (e.g.) the Xen devices work, PV is a pain. But
it need not be that way.

I think from the Plan 9 side we're happy to run full PV. But we're 0%
of the world, so that may bias our importance a bit :-)

thanks

ron