On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 6:27 PM, Anthony Liguori <aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > On 04/10/2012 10:47 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote: >> >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Izik Eidus >> <izik.ei...@ravellosystems.com> wrote: >>> >>> What about this patch?, everything that was asked from Dmitry was >>> accomplished... >>> What prevent us from progressing with merging this patch? >> >> >> Hang on, I asked what the point of the VMware paravirt device models >> is. I don't think that was ever answered fully. > > > As long as the code is high quality and there's a test suite to go along > with it, I think adding additional device emulation is perfectly fine. > > I don't think *inventing* new paravirtual devices is a good idea but this is > just like someone submitting BNX emulation. Emulating a wide variety of > devices is what we do.
The discussion I'm trying to get is: how does adding VMware emulated devices get us closer to solving v2v? I think the answer is that it doesn't but I'm curious to find out more about how exactly this fits in to a v2v process. Stefan
