Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> So, what you're saying is:
>
> 1. assuming there's going to be a vast number of miscellaneous devices
> 2. it would be best if there were one per device rather than one per
> hypervisor per device
> 3. so we'd have one linux device driver
>
> But this implies that the work is just pushed off into all the
> hypervisors to support this new device over the generic interface;
> there's no overall reduction of code or complexity, other than making
> "wc" on the kernel source smaller.
>
Sure there is, assuming you deal about heterogenous clients. I'm not
sure Xen is (although that is, as far as I understand, being remedied),
which might explain your different perspective.
Consider that this may not even be about Linux -- having these standard
devices would enable, say, 'doze device drivers to be written and shared.
> That said, something like USB is probably the best bet for this kind of
> low-performance device. I think. Not that I really know anything about
> USB.
USB is evil in the extreme for this kind of stuff. Although in theory
you can have any HCI you want, in practice the ones that are implemented
requires a very complex framework for full compatiblity.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
