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: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:49:38 +0300 Message-ID: <4A8BE6D2.3090107@redhat.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> <4A8B66280200005A00052A54@sinclair.provo.novell.com> <4A8BA635.9010902@redhat.com> <4A8BAC750200005A00052A83@sinclair.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Anthony Liguori , Ingo Molnar , Gregory Haskins , alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Gregory Haskins Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:34343 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-FAIL-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751494AbZHSLuJ (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:50:09 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4A8BAC750200005A00052A83@sinclair.provo.novell.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/19/2009 02:40 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >>>>> 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) >>> >>> >> Because virtio-net will have gained nothing that it didn't have before. >> > ?? > > *) ABI is virtio-pci compatible, as you like > That's not a gain, that's staying in the same place. > *) fast-path is in-kernel, as we all like > That's not a gain as we have vhost-net (sure, in development, but your proposed backend isn't even there yet). > *) model is in vbus so it would work in all environments that vbus supports. > The ABI can be virtio-pci compatible or it can be vbus-comaptible. How can it be both? The ABIs are different. Note that if you had submitted a virtio-net backend I'd have asked you to strip away all the management / bus layers and we'd have ended up with vhost-net. >>>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >> What are you advocating? As far as I can tell your virtio-vbus >> connector plus the vbus-kvm connector is just that. >> > I wouldn't classify it anything like that, no. Its just virtio over vbus. > We're in a loop. Doesn't virtio over vbus need a virtio-vbus connector? and doesn't vbus need a connector to talk to the hypervisor? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function