Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753344AbZIARZN (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:25:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751815AbZIARZM (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:25:12 -0400 Received: from sj-iport-3.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72]:3083 "EHLO sj-iport-3.cisco.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750985AbZIARZL (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Sep 2009 13:25:11 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAF/1nEqrR7MV/2dsb2JhbADEM4hBAZAZBYItgW4 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,313,1249257600"; d="scan'208";a="186929168" From: Roland Dreier To: James Bottomley Cc: Dmitry Torokhov , Matthew Wilcox , Bart Van Assche , Alok Kataria , Robert Love , Randy Dunlap , Mike Christie , "linux-scsi\@vger.kernel.org" , LKML , Andrew Morton , Rolf Eike Beer , Maxime Austruy Subject: Re: [PATCH] SCSI driver for VMware's virtual HBA. References: <1251415060.16297.58.camel@ank32.eng.vmware.com> <20090901161651.GO22870@parisc-linux.org> <200909010933.50571.dtor@vmware.com> <1251823925.3864.216.camel@mulgrave.site> X-Message-Flag: Warning: May contain useful information Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 10:25:11 -0700 In-Reply-To: <1251823925.3864.216.camel@mulgrave.site> (James Bottomley's message of "Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:52:05 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.91 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-OriginalArrivalTime: 01 Sep 2009 17:25:12.0183 (UTC) FILETIME=[29683870:01CA2B29] Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-1; header.From=rdreier@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim1004 verified; ); Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1040 Lines: 20 > Nobody said you had to have the exact same driver for every hypervisor. > What people are suggesting is that we look at commonalities in the > interfaces both from a control plane point of view (transport class) and > from a code sharing point of view (libscsivirt). However, all the > hypervisor interfaces I've seen are basically DMA rings ... I don't think that's anything special about hypervisors though -- pretty much all modern device interfaces are basically DMA rings, aren't they? I'm definitely in favor of common code to handle commonality but on the other hand I don't see what's so special about virtual devices vs. real HW devices. One the one side we have VMware's closed hypervisor code and on the other side we have vendor XYZ's closed RTL and firmware code. - R. -- 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/