Re: [virtio] Re: [virtio-comment] *-over-virtio

[Rusty Russell <rusty@au1.ibm.com>]

Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> writes:
> On 08/05/2013 11:48 PM, Rusty Russell wrote:
>> Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com> 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.