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

* Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@gmail.com> wrote:

> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 08/17/2009 05:16 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> >>> My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be better
> >>> off if everyone contributed to enhancing virtio, which already has
> >>> widely deployed guest drivers and non-Linux guest support.
> >>>
> >>> It may have merit if it is proven that it is technically superior to
> >>> virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I mean
> >>> design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> The design is very different, so hopefully I can start to convince you
> >> why it might be interesting.
> >>
> >
> > We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out
> > specific differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll
> > be glad to hear (and steal) them though.
>
> You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh?
>
> Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it
> apparently falls on deaf ears.

I'm trying to find the relevant discussion. The link you gave in the
previous mail:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408

does not offer any design analysis of vbus versus virtio, and why
the only fix to virtio is vbus. It offers a comparison and a blanket
statement that vbus is superior but no arguments.

(If you've already explained in a past thread then please give me an
URL to that reply if possible, or forward me that prior reply.
Thanks!)

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-08-17 17:17    [W:0.186 / U:0.756 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site