From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:33:01 -0400 Message-ID: <4611768D.1080801@garzik.org> References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> <46116E12.5070206@goop.org> <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.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: Andi Kleen Cc: Virtualization Mailing List , "H. Peter Anvin" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , mathiasen@gmail.com, virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org 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 t= hem. Yes, but, ideally with paravirtualization you should be able to avoid = the overhead of emulating many major classes of device (storage, = network, RNG, etc.) by developing a low-overhead passthrough interface = that does not involve PCI at all. Jeff