From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lithops.sigma-star.at ([195.201.40.130]:42386 "EHLO lithops.sigma-star.at" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727918AbfKZKJh (ORCPT ); Tue, 26 Nov 2019 05:09:37 -0500 Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2019 11:09:34 +0100 (CET) From: Richard Weinberger Message-ID: <243342257.98153.1574762974057.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <4ebb14dc67ccb70543617ce1f7066f3f27cd11a8.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <1531c5f16a00b608635c9a62fa3951807075f950.1573179553.git.thehajime@gmail.com> <1662825264.98055.1574758225905.JavaMail.zimbra@nod.at> <4ebb14dc67ccb70543617ce1f7066f3f27cd11a8.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [RFC v2 17/37] lkl tools: host lib: virtio devices MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Johannes Berg Cc: Hajime Tazaki , linux-arch , cem , tavi purdila , linux-um , retrage01 , linux-kernel-library , pscollins , sigmaepsilon92 , liuyuan ----- Ursprüngliche Mail ----- >> My point is that UML and LKL should try to do use the same concept/code >> regarding virtio. At the end of day both use virtual devices which use >> facilities from the host. >> If this is really not possible it needs a good explanation. > > I think it isn't possible, unless you use vhost-user over a unix domain > socket internally to talk between the kernel (virtio_uml) and hypervisor > (device) components. > > In virtio_uml, the device implementation is assumed to be a separate > process with a vhost-user connection. Here in LKL, the virtio device is > part of the "hypervisor", i.e. in the same process. Exactly, currently UML and LKL solve same things differently, but do we need to? If we fail to agree on such a high level I might make sense to reevaluate to option of not merging UML and LKL at all. But this is beyond my decisional power and something I'd like to avoid. Thanks, //richard