Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

Gregory Haskins wrote:

    

>>> Ack.  I hope when its all said and done I can convince you that the
>>> framework to code up those virtio backends in the kernel is vbus ;)
>>>       
>> If vbus doesn't bring significant performance advantages, I'll prefer
>> virtio because of existing investment.
>>     
>
> Just to clarify: vbus is just the container/framework for the in-kernel
> models.  You can implement and deploy virtio devices inside the
> container (tho I haven't had a chance to sit down and implement one
> yet).  Note that I did publish a virtio transport in the last few series
> to demonstrate how that might work, so its just ripe for the picking if
> someone is so inclined.
>
>   

Yeah I keep getting confused over this.

> So really the question is whether you implement the in-kernel virtio
> backend in vbus, in some other framework, or just do it standalone.
>   

I prefer the standalone model.  Keep the glue in userspace.

-- 
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.