[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing
From: |
Paul Brook |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing |
Date: |
Fri, 9 Dec 2011 18:46:59 +0000 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-1-amd64; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) |
> > Last time I checked at least one of the Intel/AMD schemes had been
> > implemented, through I don't know if it's been merged, or had any serious
> > performance tuning. My main intent was to raise this as a potentially
> > viable alternative. Someone who actually cares about the answer can
> > figure out the details and cobble together some benchmarks :-)
>
> Well, if we see no answers and see no interest it probably isn't a viable
> alternative as no interest typically means no code.
You're using circular logic. Based on that theory your proposal isn't viable
either. If it was someone would have done it laready!
Paul
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, (continued)
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Blue Swirl, 2011/12/08
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Brook, 2011/12/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Moore, 2011/12/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Brook, 2011/12/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Moore, 2011/12/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing,
Paul Brook <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Moore, 2011/12/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Brook, 2011/12/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Paul Moore, 2011/12/09
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Blue Swirl, 2011/12/10
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Avi Kivity, 2011/12/11