From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756138AbZHQPPH (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:15:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755935AbZHQPPG (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:15:06 -0400 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:47362 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755425AbZHQPPE (ORCPT ); Mon, 17 Aug 2009 11:15:04 -0400 Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:14:49 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Gregory Haskins Cc: Avi Kivity , Gregory Haskins , kvm@vger.kernel.org, alacrityvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects Message-ID: <20090817151449.GA19384@elte.hu> References: <20090814154125.26116.70709.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090814154308.26116.46980.stgit@dev.haskins.net> <20090815103243.GA26749@elte.hu> <4A87C3B9.2040206@redhat.com> <4A896648.9040707@gmail.com> <4A897057.2050504@redhat.com> <4A8972C3.30202@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A8972C3.30202@gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.5 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Gregory Haskins wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 08/17/2009 05:16 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: > >>> My opinion is that this is a duplication of effort and we'd be better > >>> off if everyone contributed to enhancing virtio, which already has > >>> widely deployed guest drivers and non-Linux guest support. > >>> > >>> It may have merit if it is proven that it is technically superior to > >>> virtio (and I don't mean some benchmark in some point in time; I mean > >>> design wise). So far I haven't seen any indications that it is. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> The design is very different, so hopefully I can start to convince you > >> why it might be interesting. > >> > > > > We've been through this before I believe. If you can point out > > specific differences that make venet outperform virtio-net I'll > > be glad to hear (and steal) them though. > > You sure know how to convince someone to collaborate with you, eh? > > Unforunately, i've answered that question numerous times, but it > apparently falls on deaf ears. I'm trying to find the relevant discussion. The link you gave in the previous mail: http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408 does not offer any design analysis of vbus versus virtio, and why the only fix to virtio is vbus. It offers a comparison and a blanket statement that vbus is superior but no arguments. (If you've already explained in a past thread then please give me an URL to that reply if possible, or forward me that prior reply. Thanks!) Ingo