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 18:25:02 -0400 Message-ID: <461182BE.5040902@garzik.org> References: <4611652F.700@zytor.com> <200704022312.39195.ak@suse.de> <4611768D.1080801@garzik.org> <200704022336.43136.ak@suse.de> <461178D9.402@goop.org> <46117F72.6020506@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46117F72.6020506@zytor.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 To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: Virtualization Mailing List , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, mathiasen@gmail.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org H. Peter Anvin wrote: > However, one probably wants to think about what the heck one actually = > means with "virtualization" in the absence of a lot of this stuff. PCI = > is probably the closest thing we have to a lowest common denominator for = > device detection. Sure, but let's look beyond device detection. For instance, it does not = necessarily follow that emulating PCI DMA is the best way to go for = communication with a virtual device, once detected. Outside of pci_device_id driver matching, is there much value here? Jeff