From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andi Kleen Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 10:30:36 +0200 Message-ID: <200704031030.36473.ak@suse.de> References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> <200704031029.06819.borntrae@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704031029.06819.borntrae@de.ibm.com> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, Jeremy Fitzhardinge , "H. Peter Anvin" , Virtualization Mailing List , Linux Kernel Mailing List , mathiasen@gmail.com List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On Tuesday 03 April 2007 10:29:06 Christian Borntraeger wrote: > On Monday 02 April 2007 23:12, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > How would that work in the case where virtualized guests don't have a > > > visible PCI bus, and the virtual environment doesn't pretend to emulate > > > a PCI bus? > > > > If they emulated one with the appropiate device > > then distribution driver auto probing would just work transparently for > > them. > > Still, that would only make sense for virtualized platforms that usually have > a PCI bus. Thinking about seeing a PCI device on ,lets say, s390 is strange. If it gets the job done surely you can tolerate a little strangeness? -Andi