Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> writes: > On 12/06/2011 04:30 PM, Lluís Vilanova wrote: >> 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. > > They have the same purpose (which are both vague TBH). The only > reason I'm sympathetic to this device is that virtio-serial has such > insane semantics.
Could you summarize what's wrong? Is it fixable? [...]
