<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Rusty Russell wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:1190536431.27805.109.camel@localhost.localdomain"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, 2007-09-22 at 12:01 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Saturday 22 September 2007, Rusty Russell wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">But now each virtio device has two "struct device"s, not one. And
you've made up a fictional bus to do it.
Yet for PCI systems, it really is a PCI device; exposing a second bus to
userspace just because we put a layer in our implementation is poor
form.
Perhaps this is the easiest way of doing it. But it's still wrong.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">I think it's just a matter of perspective. In the model I'm advocating,
the PCI device is not the same as the virtio device but rather a virtio
host bridge, very much like USB or SATA works.
We could easily have multiple virtio devices behind one PCI device, but
since virtual PCI devices are cheap, a one-to-one mapping makes sense
for simplicity.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
This is still retro-justification. The simplest way for PCI systems to
represent a virtio device as a PCI device; this makes life easy for any
guest OS.
I just know we're going to regret this...
Rusty.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'm not sure what's best, maybe this can help:<br>
With the virtio_find_driver you need to place all virtio drivers under
the same pci device or suggest new mapping.<br>
Using Arnd's solution (actually I implemented it for KVM before the new
patch set) and 1-1 mapping for pci and virtio <br>
devices makes life simpler.<br>
Dor.<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>