On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:01:59 +0200, Sasha Levin <levinsasha...@gmail.com> wrote: > virtio on it's own was introduced to help solve the fragmentation > around virtualized devices, so I don't think that the main purpose of > doing virtio drivers is due to any performance benefits virtio may > provide.
There's one argument in your favor (with my Linaro hat on): ARM wants a virtio reboot button, which would look remarkably similar. There's no standard ARM hardware for this. So a more generalized virtio-event device might make sense. But there are almost an infinite number of guest events we might want: panics, oom, low memory, stuck devices, deadlock, etc, etc. I'm concerned about trying to standardize them. If we include a unspecified free-form string, people will end up relying on the contents. If we add a feature bit for every new event, we'll end up running out of feature bits :) CC'ing Amit for opinion over how much of this should be done via virtio-serial. Cheers, Rusty. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
