[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-comment] *-over-virtio
Sasha Levin <email@example.com> writes: > On 08/05/2013 11:48 PM, Rusty Russell wrote: >> Sasha Levin <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We seem to have a family of several devices that are rather simple on the virtio level. Some >>> identifying features include: >>> >>> * No real usage of the configuration space >>> * No device features >>> * No control vqs >>> * Usually one, but possibly 2 vqs used for straightforward message passing outside the virtio >>> scope. >>> >>> The use case is simple: use virtio as a simple transport for protocol specific messages, this >>> can pretty much go over any other transport exactly the same way. >>> >>> Would it make sense to move their actual definition out of the spec and just reserve device >>> IDs for them there? >> >> Do we have any in the current spec? It's certainly easy to reserve IDs >> for things which aren't in the spec. > > virtio-rng and virtio-9p are good examples of that. Maybe virtio-rpmsg too, depends on how > you stretch that description above. Well, virtio-9p has a feature, and it uses the configuration space. Is it really useful to draw out these as a separate class? Seems like it's more a spectrum than a clear line. Cheers, Rusty.