On 12/08/2011 04:11 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori writes:
And yes, I can't help but think of Dave Millers comments long ago that
any PV transport is eventually going to reinvent TCP, poorly.
No doubt then, no doubt now. But if I remember correctly, we didn't
create virtio-seri
Anthony Liguori writes:
> On 12/07/2011 01:44 PM, Michael Roth wrote:
>> On 12/07/2011 07:49 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> On 12/07/2011 02:21 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori writes:
[...]
> They have the same purpose (which are both vague TBH). The only
> reason I'm sy
On 12/07/2011 01:44 PM, Michael Roth wrote:
On 12/07/2011 07:49 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/07/2011 02:21 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori 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
On 12/07/2011 07:49 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 12/07/2011 02:21 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori 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
On 12/07/2011 02:21 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
Anthony Liguori 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 t
Anthony Liguori 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
