From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Gregory Haskins" <ghaskins@novell.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for
	 vbus_driver objects
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:40:40 -0600
Message-ID: <4A8B66280200005A00052A54@sinclair.provo.novell.com>
References: <20090814154125.26116.70709.stgit@dev.haskins.net>
 <20090814154308.26116.46980.stgit@dev.haskins.net>
 <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> <4A870964.9090408@codemonkey.ws>
 <4A8965E0.8050608@gmail.com> <4A89FF08.30509@codemonkey.ws>
 <4A8AA9BD.2070909@gmail.com> <4A8AB076.6080906@redhat.com>
 <4A8ACE1F.6020402@gmail.com> <20090818165139.GC19846@redhat.com>
 <4A8B8F4E.80207@gmail.com> <4A8B9241.20300@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Cc: "Anthony Liguori" <anthony@codemonkey.ws>,
	"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>,
	<alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>, <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
To: "Gregory Haskins" <gregory.haskins@gmail.com>,
	"Avi Kivity" <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <4A8B9241.20300@redhat.com>
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

>>> On 8/19/2009 at  1:48 AM, in message <4A8B9241.20300@redhat.com>, Avi Kivity
<avi@redhat.com> wrote: 
> On 08/19/2009 08:36 AM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>> If virtio net in guest could be improved instead, everyone would
>>> benefit.
>>>      
>> So if I whip up a virtio-net backend for vbus with a PCI compliant
>> connector, you are happy?
>>    
> 
> This doesn't improve virtio-net in any way.

Any why not?  (Did you notice I said "PCI compliant", i.e. over virtio-pci)


> 
>>> I am doing this, and I wish more people would join.  Instead,
>>> you change ABI in a incompatible way.
>>>      
>> Only by choice of my particular connector.  The ABI is a function of the
>> connector design.  So one such model is to terminate the connector in
>> qemu, and surface the resulting objects as PCI devices.  I choose not to
>> use this particular design for my connector that I am pushing upstream
>> because I am of the opinion that I can do better by terminating it in
>> the guest directly as a PV optimized bus.  However, both connectors can
>> theoretically coexist peacefully.
>>    
> 
> virtio already supports this model; see lguest and s390.  Transporting 
> virtio over vbus and vbus over something else doesn't gain anything over 
> directly transporting virtio over that something else.

This is not what I am advocating.

Kind Regards,
-Greg