Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33

From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 12:01:59 +0200

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 11:28:08AM -0800, Ira W. Snyder wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 12:34:44PM -0500, Gregory Haskins wrote:
> > On 12/23/09 1:15 AM, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:36, Gregory Haskins
> > > <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >> On 12/22/09 2:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >>> * Gregory Haskins <[email-masked]> wrote:
> > >>>> Actually, these patches have nothing to do with the KVM folks. [...]
> > >>>
> > >>> That claim is curious to me - the AlacrityVM host
> > >>
> > >> It's quite simple, really.  These drivers support accessing vbus, and
> > >> vbus is hypervisor agnostic.  In fact, vbus isn't necessarily even
> > >> hypervisor related.  It may be used anywhere where a Linux kernel is the
> > >> "io backend", which includes hypervisors like AlacrityVM, but also
> > >> userspace apps, and interconnected physical systems as well.

So focus on interconnecting physical systems I think would be one way
for vbus to stop conflicting with KVM. If drivers for such systems
appear I expect that relevant (hypervisor-agnostic) vbus bits would be
very uncontroversial.

This would not be the first technology to make the jump from attempting
to be a PCI replacement to being an interconnect btw, I think infiniband
did this as well.

-- 
MST