From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Gerd Hoffmann Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2013 09:10:15 +0100 Message-ID: <50ED25E7.9010609@redhat.com> References: <20130109002110.GB5296@kroah.com> <20130108.173056.1029788106028104571.davem@davemloft.net> <1683801.VNKd61ZM1Q@dtor-d630.eng.vmware.com> <20130108.174601.1788895671912734725.davem@davemloft.net> <20130109022204.GA22875@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: pv-drivers@vmware.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, David Miller To: Dmitry Torokhov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130109022204.GA22875@dtor-ws.eng.vmware.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org Errors-To: virtualization-bounces@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 01/09/13 03:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote: >> I'd much rather see a hypervisor neutral solution than a hypervisor >> specific one which this certainly is. > > Objectively speaking neither solution is hypervisor neutral as there are > hypervisors that implement either VMCI or virtio or something else > entirely. Indeed. vmchannel is tied to virtio like vsock is tied to vmci. > Our position is that VSOCK feature set is more complete and that it > should be possible to use transports other than VMCI for VSOCK traffic, > should interested parties implement them, Implementing other transports requires restructing vsock (and vmci) first as the current vsock code is not a hypervisor neutral service. cheers, Gerd