From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andy King Subject: Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:42:21 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1979127675.2501555.1360039341169.JavaMail.root@vmware.com> References: <20130108.174601.1788895671912734725.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130108.174601.1788895671912734725.davem@davemloft.net> 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: David Miller Cc: dtor@vmware.com, pv-drivers@vmware.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Hi Dave, > >> Instead, what I remember doing was deferring to the feedback these > >> folks received, stating that ideas that the virtio people had > >> mentioned should be considered instead. > >> > >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=135301515818462&w=2 > > > > I believe Andy replied to Anthony's AF_VMCHANNEL post and the > > differences between the proposed solutions. > > I'd much rather see a hypervisor neutral solution than a hypervisor > specific one which this certainly is. We've addressed this with the latest patch series, which I sent earlier today. vSockets now has support for pluggable transports, of which VMCI happens to be the first; all transport code is separated out into its own module. So the core is now hypervisor neutral. Given that, would you be willing to re-consider it, please? If at all possible, we'd like to make the current merge window. Thanks so much! - Andy