On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:43:52AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > * Michael S. Tsirkin (m...@redhat.com) wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 06, 2021 at 09:28:50AM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > > To me it feels the same as the distinction between vhost-kernel and qemu > > > backended virtio that we get in net and others - in principal it's just > > > another implementation. > > > > In net it's actually like this. Same -device, a different netdev. > > > > > A tricky part is guaranteeing the set of visible virtio features between > > > implementations; we have that problem when we use vhost-kernel and run > > > on a newer/older kernel and gain virtio features; the same will be true > > > with vhost-user implementations. > > > > That's not new but yes we need to work on this. > > > > > But this would make the structure of a vhost-user implementation quite > > > different. > > > > > > Dave > > > > Right. That's why I'm reluctant to just add a new device type that > > has special compatibility requirements. > > Hmm but there's already another layer of hack^Wabstraction in there isn't > there - > there's already: > virtio-blk-pci > virtio-blk-device > > created when the user specifies a virtio-blk device? > > Dave
virtio-*-pci is there because it was felt these devices look differently from e.g. virtio-ccw so should have a different name. virtio-blk-device is an internal thingy, users and guests have no idea. > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > MST > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK > > > > > > > -- > > > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK > > > -- > Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK
