Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. emulated, backward compatibility etc

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>]

 On 07/29/2010 09:14 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. 
> > emulated, backward compatibility etc"):
> > > On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > Well, no, they can't, because their bootloader probably doesn't
> > > > understand anything besides what they're actually using.
> > > they only have to change the device name, not the device class
> > Surely you can't steal only one minor number ?
> yes, that's what we do.
More than one minor, surely?  One for each device.

> > > > Certainly stealing the major number for scsi disks seems quite
> > > > dangerous.  pv-usb is hardly that unlikely a scenario.
> > > we are not doing that for pvusb
> > pv-usb =>  usb mass storage =>  scsi disks
> I mean there is no such thing as pv-usb.
Well, it hasn't been ported to pvops yet.  I've been getting promises of 
patches any month now for a couple of years.
I wonder if blkfront could register itself with the scsi subsystem 
rather than directly as a block device?
    J

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel