On 2017-01-30 09:02, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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 :) >
After having received multiple feedbacks in this direction, I will drop that proposal from our list. So, don't worry. ;) Jan
