From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965977AbXDBWEe (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:04:34 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S965986AbXDBWEe (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:04:34 -0400 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:54861 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965977AbXDBWEd (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Apr 2007 18:04:33 -0400 Message-ID: <46117DE9.6060506@goop.org> Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:04:25 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070302) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Anthony Liguori CC: Andi Kleen , Virtualization Mailing List , Jeff Garzik , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , mathiasen@gmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> <4611768D.1080801@garzik.org> <200704022336.43136.ak@suse.de> <461178D9.402@goop.org> <46117B62.9030902@us.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <46117B62.9030902@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Anthony Liguori wrote: > The actual PCI bus could paravirtualized. It's just a question of > whether one reinvents a device discovery mechanism (like XenBus) or > whether one piggy backs on existing mechanisms. > > Furthermore, in the future, I strongly suspect that HVM will become > much more important for Xen than PV and since that already has a PCI > bus it's not really that big of a deal. Well, obviously it keeps things simple for me to not worry about PCI support in Xen at this point. But I was thinking more of lguest; I think PCI emulation would kill puppies. J