Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760147AbZDBOe6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:34:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756657AbZDBOep (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:34:45 -0400 Received: from lucius.provo.novell.com ([137.65.248.127]:39317 "EHLO lucius.provo.novell.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755505AbZDBOeo convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2009 10:34:44 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 1206 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 10:34:44 EDT Message-Id: <49D473EA020000C700056627@lucius.provo.novell.com> X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 8.0.0 Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:14:34 -0600 From: "Patrick Mullaney" To: Cc: , , , "Gregory Haskins" , "Peter Morreale" , , , , , Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus References: <49D469D2020000A100045FA1@lucius.provo.novell.com> <49D473EA020000C700056627@lucius.provo.novell.com> In-Reply-To: <49D473EA020000C700056627@lucius.provo.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1406 Lines: 32 On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 16:27 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > virtio is a stable ABI. > > > However, theres still the possibility we can make this work in an ABI > > friendly way with cap-bits, or other such features. For instance, the > > virtio-net driver could register both with pci and vbus-proxy and > > instantiate a device with a slightly different ops structure for each or > > something. Alternatively we could write a host-side shim to expose vbus > > devices as pci devices or something like that. > > > > Sounds complicated... > IMO, it doesn't sound anymore complicated than making virtio support the concepts already provided by vbus/venet-tap driver. Isn't there already precedent for alternative approaches co-existing and having the users decide which is the most appropriate for their use case? Switching drivers in order to improve latency for a certain class of applications would seem like something latency sensitive users would be more than willing to do. I'd like to point out 2 things. Greg has offered help in moving virtio into the vbus infrastructure. The vbus infrastructure is a large part of what is being proposed here. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/