Hi Dave,
> >> Instead, what I remember doing was deferring to the feedback these
> >> folks received, stating that ideas that the virtio people had
> >> mentioned should be considered instead.
> >>
> >> http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=135301515818462&w=2
> >
> > I believe Andy replied to Anth
> > > Our position is that VSOCK feature set is more complete and that
> > > it
> > > should be possible to use transports other than VMCI for VSOCK
> > > traffic, should interested parties implement them,
> >
> > Implementing other transports requires restructing vsock (and vmci)
> > first as the
> > Our position is that VSOCK feature set is more complete and that it
> > should be possible to use transports other than VMCI for VSOCK
> > traffic, should interested parties implement them,
>
> Implementing other transports requires restructing vsock (and vmci)
> first as the current vsock cod
On 01/09/13 03:22, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
>> I'd much rather see a hypervisor neutral solution than a hypervisor
>> specific one which this certainly is.
>
> Objectively speaking neither solution is hypervisor neutral as there are
> h
On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 05:46:01PM -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: Dmitry Torokhov
> Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:41:44 -0800
>
> > On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:30:56 PM David Miller wrote:
> >> From: Greg KH
> >> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:21:10 -0800
> >>
> >> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:59
From: Dmitry Torokhov
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2013 17:41:44 -0800
> On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:30:56 PM David Miller wrote:
>> From: Greg KH
>> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:21:10 -0800
>>
>> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:59:08PM -0800, George Zhang wrote:
>> >> * * *
>> >>
>> >> This series of VSOCK
On Tuesday, January 08, 2013 05:30:56 PM David Miller wrote:
> From: Greg KH
> Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 16:21:10 -0800
>
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 03:59:08PM -0800, George Zhang wrote:
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> This series of VSOCK linux upstreaming patches include latest udpate from
> >> VMware to ad
Hi Anthony,
> This was already done in a hypervisor neutral way using virtio:
>
> http://lists.openwall.net/netdev/2008/12/14/8
>
> The concept was Nacked and that led to the abomination of
> virtio-serial. If an address family for virtualization is on the
> table, we should reconsider AF_VMCHA
On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 15:32 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> The concept was Nacked and that led to the abomination of virtio-serial. If
> an
> address family for virtualization is on the table, we should reconsider
> AF_VMCHANNEL.
>
> I'd be thrilled to get rid of virtio-serial...
Ack.
Be
On 11/07/2012 12:58 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
On 11/05/12 19:19, Andy King wrote:
Hi David,
The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of
this stuff without your proprietary bits?
Do you mean the VMCI calls? The VMCI driver is in the process of being
upstreamed into the
Hi Sasha,
Thanks for taking a look.
> So all the documentation I see in the VMCI Socket Programming Guide
> is about userspace programming, and the documentation in af_vsock.c
> is all around implementation considerations.
Agreed, we're sorely lacking in proper documentation for the internal
pro
Hi Gerd,
>> Also, there was some interest from RedHat into using vSockets as
>> a unified interface, routed over a hypervisor-specific transport
>> (virtio or otherwise, although for now VMCI is the only one
>> implemented).
>
> Can you outline how this can be done? From a quick look over the
>
On 11/05/12 19:19, Andy King wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of
>> this stuff without your proprietary bits?
>
> Do you mean the VMCI calls? The VMCI driver is in the process of being
> upstreamed into the drivers/misc tree. Greg (cc'd on
Hi David,
> The big and only question is whether anyone can actually use any of
> this stuff without your proprietary bits?
Do you mean the VMCI calls? The VMCI driver is in the process of being
upstreamed into the drivers/misc tree. Greg (cc'd on these patches) is
actively reviewing that code
14 matches
Mail list logo
