Lluís Vilanova writes: > 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. BTW, I think that having the softmmu-side of the backdoor inside ivshmem would in fact be a simple change. I just want to make sure whether the reason to merge both is about minimising code maintenance or rather thinking that it would make more sense to have both as a single pack of functionalities. 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
