Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/6] vbus: add a "vbus-proxy" bus model for vbus_driver objects

From: Ingo Molnar <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:08:44 +0200

* Gregory Haskins <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi Ingo,
> 
> 1) First off, let me state that I have made every effort to 
> propose this as a solution to integrate with KVM, the most recent 
> of which is April:
> 
>    http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/4/21/408
> 
> If you read through the various vbus related threads on LKML/KVM 
> posted this year, I think you will see that I made numerous polite 
> offerings to work with people on finding a common solution here, 
> including Michael.
> 
> In the end, Michael decided that go a different route using some 
> of the ideas proposed in vbus + venet-tap to create vhost-net.  
> This is fine, and I respect his decision.  But do not try to pin 
> "fracturing" on me, because I tried everything to avoid it. :)

That's good.

So if virtio is fixed to be as fast as vbus, and if there's no other 
techical advantages of vbus over virtio you'll be glad to drop vbus 
and stand behind virtio?

Also, are you willing to help virtio to become faster? Or do you 
have arguments why that is impossible to do so and why the only 
possible solution is vbus? Avi says no such arguments were offered 
so far.

	Ingo