Anthony Liguori writes: > I really worry about us introducing so many of these one-off paravirtual > devices. > I would much prefer that you look at doing this as an extension to the ivshmem > device as it already has this sort of scope. You should be able to do this by > just extending the size of bar 1 and using a well known guest id.
I did in fact look at ivshmem some time ago, and it's true that both use the same mechanisms; but each device has a completely different purpose. To me it just seems that extending the control BAR in ivshmem to call the user-provided backdoor callbacks is just conflating two completely separate devices into a single one. Besides, I think that the qemu-side of the backdoor is simple enough to avoid being a maintenance burden. Another question would be to join both so that the backdoor can be used to orchestrate operations between multiple VMs through ivshmem's server, but I really have no time to look into that and don't even know whether it would then make sense to join both devices. Thanks, Lluis -- "And it's much the same thing with knowledge, for whenever you learn something new, the whole world becomes that much richer." -- The Princess of Pure Reason, as told by Norton Juster in The Phantom Tollbooth
