From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 12:03:32 +0300 Message-ID: <49D47F64.3020709@redhat.com> References: <20090402030935.GA27836@gondor.apana.org.au> <49D45F59.9030100@redhat.com> <20090402085411.GA29967@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , andi@firstfloor.org, ghaskins@novell.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agraf@suse.de, pmullaney@novell.com, pmorreale@novell.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, netdev@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20090402085411.GA29967@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Herbert Xu wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 09:46:49AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> I don't understand this. If we had good interfaces, all that userspace >> would do is translate guest physical addresses to host physical >> addresses, and translate the guest->host protocol to host API calls. I >> don't see anything there that benefits from being in the kernel. >> >> Can you elaborate? >> > > I think Greg has expressed it clearly enough. > > At the end of the day, the numbers speak for themselves. So if > and when there's a user-space version that achieves the same or > better results, then I will change my mind :) > Like Anthony said, the problem is with the kernel->user interfaces. We won't have a good user space virtio implementation until that is fixed. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function