On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 08:08:05AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>> My preference is ring proxying. Not we'll need ring proxying (or at >>> least event proxying) for non-MSI guests. >>> >> >> Exactly, that's what I meant earlier. That's enough, isn't it, Anthony? >> > > It is if we have a working implementation that demonstrates the > userspace interface is sufficient.
The idea is trivial enough to be sure the interface is sufficient: we point kernel at used buffer at address X, and copy stuff from there to guest buffer, then signal guest. I'll post a code snippet to show how it's done if you like. > Once it goes into the upstream > kernel, we need to have backwards compatibility code in QEMU forever > to support that kernel version. Don't worry: kernel needs to handle old userspace as well, and neither I nor Rusty want to have a compatibility mess in kernel. > Regards, > > Anthony Liguori _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
