[lkml]   [2009]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects

* Avi Kivity <> wrote:

> I don't have any technical objections to vbus/venet (I had in the
> past re interrupts but I believe you've addressed them), and it
> appears to perform very well. However I still think we should
> address virtio's shortcomings (as Michael is doing) rather than
> create a competitor. We have enough external competition, we
> don't need in-tree competitors.

I do have strong technical objections: distributions really want to
standardize on as few Linux internal virtualization APIs as
possible, so splintering it just because /bin/cp is easy to do is

If virtio pulls even with vbus's performance and vbus has no
advantages over virtio i do NAK vbus on that basis. Lets stop the
sillyness before it starts hurting users. Coming up with something
better is good, but doing an incompatible, duplicative framework
just for NIH reasons is stupid and should be resisted.

People dont get to add a new sys_read_v2() without strong technical
arguments either - the same holds for our Linux internal driver
abstractions, APIs and ABIs.


 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-17 17:09    [W:0.111 / U:5.140 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site