[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 18:59:29 +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 already!
... and to be clear, the reason I don't care is because you're trying to solve
a problem that doesn't interest me. I can see the benefit you're trying to
achieve, but for my workloads once the guest genie gets out of the bottle
you've already lost.
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, 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, Blue Swirl, 2011/12/10
Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] Device sandboxing, Avi Kivity, 2011/12/11