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: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:59:35 +0300 Message-ID: <4A897057.2050504@redhat.com> References: <20090814154125.26116.70709.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090814154308.26116.46980.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> <4A87C3B9.2040206@redhat.com> <4A896648.9040707@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ingo Molnar , Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4A896648.9040707@gmail.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 08/17/2009 05:16 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> 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. >> >> > > The design is very different, so hopefully I can start to convince you > why it might be interesting. > We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out specific differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll be glad to hear (and steal) them though. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function