Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 15 Nov 2012 15:32:07 -0600 | From | Anthony Liguori <> | Subject | Re: [Pv-drivers] [PATCH 0/6] VSOCK for Linux upstreaming |
| |
On 11/07/2012 12:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On 11/05/12 19:19, Andy King wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of >>> this stuff without your proprietary bits? >> >> Do you mean the VMCI calls? The VMCI driver is in the process of being >> upstreamed into the drivers/misc tree. Greg (cc'd on these patches) is >> actively reviewing that code and we are addressing feedback. >> >> Also, there was some interest from RedHat into using vSockets as a unified >> interface, routed over a hypervisor-specific transport (virtio or >> otherwise, although for now VMCI is the only one implemented). > > Can you outline how this can be done? From a quick look over the code > it seems like vsock has a hard dependency on vmci, is that correct? > > When making vsock a generic, reusable kernel service it should be the > other way around: vsock should provide the core implementation and an > interface where hypervisor-specific transports (vmci, virtio, xenbus, > ...) can register themself.
This was already done in a hypervisor neutral way using virtio:
http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2008/12/14/8
The concept was Nacked and that led to the abomination of virtio-serial. If an address family for virtualization is on the table, we should reconsider AF_VMCHANNEL.
I'd be thrilled to get rid of virtio-serial...
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
> > cheers, > Gerd
| |