From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects Date: Sun, 16 Aug 2009 11:30:49 +0300 Message-ID: <4A87C3B9.2040206@redhat.com> References: <20090814154125.26116.70709.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090814154308.26116.46980.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Ingo Molnar Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:48212 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722AbZHPIbO (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Aug 2009 04:31:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/15/2009 01:32 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >> This will generally be used for hypervisors to publish any host-side >> virtual devices up to a guest. The guest will have the opportunity >> to consume any devices present on the vbus-proxy as if they were >> platform devices, similar to existing buses like PCI. >> >> > Is there a consensus on this with the KVM folks? (i've added the KVM > list to the Cc:) > My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be better off if everyone contributed to enhancing virtio, which already has widely deployed guest drivers and non-Linux guest support. It may have merit if it is proven that it is technically superior to virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I mean design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function