Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>
>> That being said, on platforms which are PCI-centric, such as x86, this
>> of course makes it a lot easier to produce virtual devices which work
>> across hypervisors, since the device model, of *any* operating system is
>> set up to handle them.
>
> Yes, as I said there are two separate problems. I really think that
> a standardized virtual driver interface should be modeled after
> kernel <-> user interfaces, not hardware <-> kernel interfaces.
>
> Once we know what operations we want (e.g. read, write and SIGIO,
> or some other set of primitives), it will be good to provide a
> virtual PCI device that can be used as one transport mechanism
> below it. Using PCI device IDs to tell what functionality is
> provided by the device would provide a reasonable method for
> autoprobing.
>
That seems like a reasonable approach. I *do* care about
hardware-equivalent interfaces, because they, too, keep getting
reinvented, but it seems reasonable to approach it in a layered fashion
like you describe.
-hpa
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
