From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33 Date: Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:08:25 +0100 Message-ID: <200912231508.25355.bzolnier@gmail.com> References: <4B1D4F29.8020309@gmail.com> <200912231407.20130.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B321B9F.6030707@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Anthony Liguori , Andi Kleen , Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net" To: Avi Kivity Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f219.google.com ([209.85.219.219]:63071 "EHLO mail-ew0-f219.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755322AbZLWOKn (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:10:43 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B321B9F.6030707@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wednesday 23 December 2009 02:31:11 pm Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/23/2009 03:07 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > >> That is a very different situation from the AlacrityVM patches, which: > >> > >> - Are a pure software concept and any compatibility mismatch is > >> self-inflicted. The patches are in fact breaking the ABI to KVM > >> intentionally (for better or worse). > >> > > Care to explain the 'breakage' and why KVM is more special in this regard > > than other parts of the kernel (where we don't keep any such requirements)? > > > > The device model is exposed to the guest. If you change it, the guest > breaks. Huh? Shouldn't non-vbus aware guests continue to work just fine? > > I certainly missed the time when KVM became officially part of core ABI.. > > > > It's more akin to the hardware interface. We don't change the hardware > underneath the guest. As far as my limited understanding of things go vbus is completely opt-in so it is like adding new real hardware to host. Where is the problem? -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz