From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anthony Liguori Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:32:07 -0600 Message-ID: <50A55F57.7080804@us.ibm.com> References: <783561822.12637564.1352139592543.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> <509A06AB.2020700@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andy King , pv-drivers@vmware.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, David Miller , georgezhang@vmware.com, Benjamin Herrenschmidt To: Gerd Hoffmann Return-path: Received: from e28smtp08.in.ibm.com ([122.248.162.8]:43221 "EHLO e28smtp08.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751050Ab2KOVcT (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:32:19 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e28smtp08.in.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 16 Nov 2012 03:02:16 +0530 In-Reply-To: <509A06AB.2020700@redhat.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/07/2012 12:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 11/05/12 19:19, Andy King wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of >>> this stuff without your proprietary bits? >> >> Do you mean the VMCI calls? The VMCI driver is in the process of being >> upstreamed into the drivers/misc tree. Greg (cc'd on these patches) is >> actively reviewing that code and we are addressing feedback. >> >> Also, there was some interest from RedHat into using vSockets as a unified >> interface, routed over a hypervisor-specific transport (virtio or >> otherwise, although for now VMCI is the only one implemented). > > Can you outline how this can be done? From a quick look over the code > it seems like vsock has a hard dependency on vmci, is that correct? > > When making vsock a generic, reusable kernel service it should be the > other way around: vsock should provide the core implementation and an > interface where hypervisor-specific transports (vmci, virtio, xenbus, > ...) can register themself. This was already done in a hypervisor neutral way using virtio: http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2008/12/14/8 The concept was Nacked and that led to the abomination of virtio-serial. If an address family for virtualization is on the table, we should reconsider AF_VMCHANNEL. I'd be thrilled to get rid of virtio-serial... Regards, Anthony Liguori > > cheers, > Gerd