From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Rusty Russell Subject: Re: [RFC 0/4] Using a generic bus_type for virtio Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:15:30 +1000 Message-ID: <1183860930.6005.212.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20070706124200.988637662@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070706124200.988637662@arndb.de> 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 To: arnd@arndb.de Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Fri, 2007-07-06 at 14:42 +0200, arnd@arndb.de wrote: > This is a subject that came up in the virtio BOF session > at OLS. I decided to go forward and implement something > that I like, based on the latest virtio proposal at the > time, which was draft III. > > It's not a drop-in replacement, because it's missing a > host implementation. I first started my own, which is > not done yet, but wanted to do one for lguest and one > for emulated PCI next. It's also entirely untested. Hi Arnd, I think it will come down to how neat PCI<->virtio is. Can we push further towards PCI without screwing non-PCI? eg. can we use pci_device_id? struct pci_driver? (Might be pushing it, but should probably be considered: it'd be neat if some platforms could #define virtio_driver_register pci_driver_register). Standardizing how to pack the info for each device into the config space would be especially useful. Our drivers are going to get more featureful, and we're going to need a versioning/compatibility scheme too. Basically, I'd like to see someone start with work from the PCI side, then make sure non-PCI isn't overly burdened. Cheers, Rusty.