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

ron minnich
2007-05-21T23:09:55Z

OK, so what are we doing here? We're using a PCI abstraction, as a
common abstraction,which is not common really, because we don't have a
common abstraction? So we describe all these non-pci resources with a
pci abstraction?

I don't get it at all. I really think the resource interface idea I
mentioned, which is borrowed from Plan 9, makes a whole lot more
sense. IBM Austin has already shown it in practice in the papers I
referenced. It can work. A memory channel at the bottom, with a
resource sharing protocol (9p) above it, and then you describe your
resources via names and a simple file-directory model. Note that PCI
sort of tries to do this tree model, but it's all binary, and, as
noted, it's hardly universal.

All of this is trivially exported over a network, so the use of shared
memory channels in no way rules out network access. Plan 9 exports
devices over the network routinely.

If you're using a PCI abstraction, something has gone badly wrong I think.

thanks

ron