Subject: Re: [PATCH] AF_VMCHANNEL address family for guest<->host communication.

From: Evgeniy Polyakov <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:25:32 +0300

On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 08:57:27AM +0200, Gleb Natapov ([email-masked]) wrote:
> > Another approach is to implement that virtio backend with netlink based
> > userspace interface (like using connector or genetlink). This does not
> > differ too much from what you have with special socket family, but at
> > least it does not duplicate existing functionality of
> > userspace-kernelspace communications.
> > 
> I implemented vmchannel using connector initially (the downside is that
> message can be dropped). Is this more expectable for upstream? The
> implementation was 300 lines of code.

Hard to tell, it depends on implementation. But if things are good, I
have no objections as connector maintainer :)

Messages in connector in particular and netlink in general are only
dropped, when receiving buffer is full (or when there is no memory), you
can tune buffer size to match virtual queue size or vice versa.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov