Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de> writes: > On 2017-01-29 15:00, Marc-André Lureau wrote: >> Hi >> >> On Sun, Jan 29, 2017 at 12:44 PM Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@web.de >> <mailto:jan.kis...@web.de>> wrote: >> >> >> Of course, I'm careful with investing much time into expanding the >> >> existing, for Jailhouse possibly sufficient design if there no real >> >> interest in continuing the ivshmem support in QEMU - because of >> >> vhost-pci or other reasons. But if that interest exists, it would be >> >> beneficial for us to have QEMU supporting a compatible version >> and using >> >> the same guest drivers. Then I would start looking into concrete >> patches >> >> for it as well. >> > >> > Interest is difficult for me to gauge, not least because alternatives >> > are still being worked on. >> >> I'm considering to suggest this as GSoC project now. >> >> >> It's better for a student and for the community if the work get accepted >> in the end.
Yes. >> So, I think that could be an intersting GSoC (implementing your ivshmem >> 2 proposal). However, if the qemu community isn't ready to accept a new >> ivshmem, and would rather have vhost-pci based solution, I would suggest >> a different project (hopefully Wei Wang can help define it and mentor): >> work on a vhost-pci using dedicated shared PCI BARs (and kernel support >> to avoid extra copy - if I understand the extra copy situation correctly). > > It's still open if vhost-pci can replace ivshmem (not to speak of being > desirable for Jailhouse - I'm still studying). In that light, having > both implementations available to do real comparisons is valuable IMHO. Yes, but is it appropriate for GSoC? > That said, we will play with open cards, explain the student the > situation and let her/him decide knowingly. Both the student and the QEMU project need to consider the situation carefully. > Jan > > PS: We have a mixed history /wrt actually merging student projects. Yes, but having screwed up is no license to screw up some more :)
