From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gregory Haskins Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:35:06 -0400 Message-ID: <4A89B0EA.3030605@gmail.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> <4A897057.2050504@redhat.com> <4A8972C3.30202@gmail.com> <20090817151449.GA19384@elte.hu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig5900680D1D8572290F7DA327" Cc: Avi Kivity , 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 mail-gx0-f205.google.com ([209.85.217.205]:47834 "EHLO mail-gx0-f205.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754701AbZHQTfM (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:35:12 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20090817151449.GA19384@elte.hu> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig5900680D1D8572290F7DA327 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Gregory Haskins wrote: >=20 >> Avi Kivity wrote: >>> On 08/17/2009 05:16 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >>>>> My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be bett= er >>>>> 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 t= o >>>>> virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I me= an >>>>> design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is. >>>>> >>>>> =20 >>>> The design is very different, so hopefully I can start to convince y= ou >>>> why it might be interesting. >>>> =20 >>> We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out=20 >>> specific differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll=20 >>> be glad to hear (and steal) them though. >> You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh? >> >> Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it=20 >> apparently falls on deaf ears. >=20 > I'm trying to find the relevant discussion. The link you gave in the=20 > previous mail: >=20 > http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408 >=20 > does not offer any design analysis of vbus versus virtio, and why=20 > the only fix to virtio is vbus. It offers a comparison and a blanket=20 > statement that vbus is superior but no arguments. >=20 > (If you've already explained in a past thread then please give me an=20 > URL to that reply if possible, or forward me that prior reply.=20 > Thanks!) Sorry, it was a series of long threads from quite a while back. I will see if I can find some references, but it might be easier to just start fresh (see the last reply I sent). Kind Regards, -Greg --------------enig5900680D1D8572290F7DA327 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.11 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkqJsOoACgkQP5K2CMvXmqEO/gCdHt1q+HVUVeZV00Ysot2anW61 Rg8An2YKBPCo9DLyM7/OegsLTv5hdWEe =309v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig5900680D1D8572290F7DA327--