Hi Gleb.
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 04:31:46PM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com) wrote:
Here it is. Sorry it is not in a patch format yet, but it gives
general idea how it looks. The problem with connector is that
we need different IDX for different channels and there is no way
to
On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 12:25:32AM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:57:27AM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com)
wrote:
Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based
userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:57:27AM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com) wrote:
Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based
userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not
differ too much from what you have with
From: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:48:19 +0200
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:44:36PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
You guys really need to rethink this. Either a stream protocol is a
workable solution to your problem, or it isn't.
Stream protocol is workable solution
David Miller wrote:
From: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:50:55 +0200
It is undesirable to use TCP/IP for this purpose since network
connectivity may not exist between host and guest and if it exists the
traffic can be not routable between host and guest for security
-Original Message-
From: kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-ow...@vger.kernel.org] On
Behalf Of Jeremy Fitzhardinge
The trouble is that it presumes that the host and guest (or whoever the
endpoints are) are on the same physical machine and will remain that
way. Given that live
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Each of these sockets are going to be connected to a backend (to
implement guest=copy/paste for instance). We want to implement
those backends in userspace and preferably in QEMU.
Using some raw protocol over ethernet means you don't have
reliability. If you use
From: Anthony Liguori anth...@codemonkey.ws
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 09:02:23 -0600
There is already an AF_IUCV for s390.
This is a scarecrow and irrelevant to this discussion.
And this is exactly why I asked that any arguments in this thread
avoid talking about virtualization technology and why
There is a need for communication channel between host and various
agents that are running inside a VM guest. The channel will be used
for statistic gathering, logging, cut paste, host screen resolution
changes notifications, guest configuration etc.
It is undesirable to use TCP/IP for this
Hi Gleb.
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:50:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com) wrote:
There is a need for communication channel between host and various
agents that are running inside a VM guest. The channel will be used
for statistic gathering, logging, cut paste, host screen resolution
Hi Evgeniy,
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 03:23:20PM +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 01:50:55PM +0200, Gleb Natapov (g...@redhat.com)
wrote:
There is a need for communication channel between host and various
agents that are running inside a VM guest. The channel will be
From: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:50:55 +0200
It is undesirable to use TCP/IP for this purpose since network
connectivity may not exist between host and guest and if it exists the
traffic can be not routable between host and guest for security reasons
or TCP/IP
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 10:44:36PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
From: Gleb Natapov g...@redhat.com
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 13:50:55 +0200
It is undesirable to use TCP/IP for this purpose since network
connectivity may not exist between host and guest and if it exists the
traffic can be not
13 matches
Mail list logo
