From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Markus Armbruster Subject: Re: Re: More virtio users Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 15:44:15 +0200 Message-ID: <87wsyaobbk.fsf@pike.pond.sub.org> References: <466BA965.6050208@qumranet.com> <1181463220.16428.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: kvm-devel , xen-devel , Avi Kivity , virtualization To: Rusty Russell Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1181463220.16428.24.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Rusty Russell's message of "Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:13:40 +1000") List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Rusty Russell writes: > On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 10:33 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> It is worthwhile, when designing virtio, to keep in mind as many >> possible users as possible. In addition to block and net, I see at >> least the following: [...] > Framebuffer is an interesting one. Virtio doesn't assume shared memory, > so naively the fb you would just send outbufs describing changed memory. > This would work, but describing rectangles is better. A helper might be > the right approach here Wouldn't that be slow? Xen's PV framebuffer tracks dirty areas with page granularity. > Lguest doesn't have a framebuffer, so maybe this is a good thing for me > to hack on, but I promised myself I'd finish NAPI for the net device, > and tag for block device first. That would be nice. It usually takes more than one implementation to get an abstraction right.