Re: [RFC][PATCH v3 1/3] A device for zero-copy based on KVM virtio-net.

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 April 2010, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > qemu needs the ability to inject raw packets into device
> > > > from userspace, bypassing vhost/virtio (for live migration).
> > > 
> > > Ok, but since there is only a write callback and no read, it won't
> > > actually be able to do this with the current code, right?
> > 
> > I think it'll work as is, with vhost qemu only ever writes,
> > never reads from device. We'll also never need GSO etc
> > which is a large part of what tap does (and macvtap will
> > have to do).
> 
> Ah, I see. I didn't realize that qemu needs to write to the
> device even if vhost is used. But for the case of migration to
> another machine without vhost, wouldn't qemu also need to read?

Not that I know. Why?

> > > Moreover, it seems weird to have a new type of interface here that
> > > duplicates tap/macvtap with less functionality. Coming back
> > > to your original comment, this means that while mpassthru is currently
> > > not duplicating the actual code from macvtap, it would need to do
> > > exactly that to get the qemu interface right!
> > > 
> > I don't think so, see above. anyway, both can reuse tun.c :)
> 
> There is one significant difference between macvtap/mpassthru and
> tun/tap in that the directions are reversed. While macvtap and
> mpassthru forward data from write into dev_queue_xmit and from
> skb_receive into read, tun/tap forwards data from write into
> skb_receive and from start_xmit into read.
> 
> Also, I'm not really objecting to duplicating code between
> macvtap and mpassthru, as the implementation can always be merged.
> My main objection is instead to having two different _user_interfaces_
> for doing the same thing.
> 
> 	Arnd

They *could* do the same thing :)

-- 
MST