On Thu, 28 Jul 2016, Sander Eikelenboom wrote: > Thursday, July 28, 2016, 8:11:53 PM, you wrote: > > > ping > > Hi Stefano, > > JFYI: > Since this doesn't seem to be checked with the upstream kernel yet, > I don't know if you are aware of the opinions expressed upstream > about the proposed Hyper-V socket patches: > http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1607.3/01748.html > > (and if that should either influence your design or design process)
Thanks Sander, I am aware of that conversation going on. However the problem they have is that hv_sock is similar to vsock (at least in purpose), and the kernel guys would like to see only one option for VM-hypervisor communications. That is understandable. The Xen community had a similar discussion when v4v was proposed (we already had vchan). This is not an inter-VM or VM-hypervisor communication protocol. It cannot be replaced with vsock. They might still dislike xensock and even nack it, but I think it will be for different reasons. On a related topic, I am thinking of renaming xensock to something more like "PVCalls". XenSock is confusing. It encourages comparisons with vsock. xensock sounds like vsock or hv_sock for xen, which is not. In fact in the future there might be a virtio version of this protocol, and still it wouldn't be able to replace virtio-vsock. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
