From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: A set of "standard" virtual devices? Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:30:40 -0700 Message-ID: <46118410.2060904@zytor.com> 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> <461182BE.5040902@garzik.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <461182BE.5040902@garzik.org> 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: Jeff Garzik Cc: Virtualization Mailing List , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, mathiasen@gmail.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Jeff Garzik wrote: > = > 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. > = This is true, of course. However, there are going to be a set of = virtual devices which don't necessarily have to have super-high = performance. In the case of a hwrng device, even doing DMA is probably = overkill. > Outside of pci_device_id driver matching, is there much value here? If we can get a set of device drivers that if not all then at least a = number of hypervisors and/or emulators can agree upon, I think that's = much won. -hpa