On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 11:41:49 +0200, Arnd Bergmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 03 April 2007, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > However, one probably wants to think about what the heck one actually > > means with "virtualization" in the absence of a lot of this stuff. PCI > > is probably the closest thing we have to a lowest common denominator for > > device detection. > > I think that's true outside of s390, but a standardized virtual device > interface should be able to work there as well. Interestingly, the > s390 channel I/O also uses two 16 bit numbers to identify a device > (type and model), just like PCI or USB, so in that light, we might > be able to use the same number space for something entirely different > depending on the virtual bus. Even if we used those ids for cu_type and dev_type, it would still be ugly IMO. It would be much cleaner to just define a very simple, easy to implement virtual bus without dragging implementation details for other types of devices around. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list [email protected] https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
