Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] blkif.h: document scsi/0x12/0x83 node

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.03.16 at 16:27, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 03:12:02PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> David Vrabel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] blkif.h: document 
> scsi/0x12/0x83 node"):
>> > On 22/03/16 14:10, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> > > Just think of it as a black box.
>> > 
>> > This isn't sufficient.
>> > 
>> > You are presenting a solution but have not properly described the
>> > problem so no one can evaluate whether the solution is appropriate.
>> 
>> I'm sorry to be awkward, but I'm afraid I do agree with David Vrabel's
>> messages in this thread.
>> 
>> I don't think this is a sterile academic conversation which would (if
>> satisfactorily answered) have no real implications.  Rather, if we
>> understood the use case properly, there would probably be implications
>> for whether how this functionality ought to be exposed via the libxl
>> API; whether blkfront should consume this information by default; and
>> so on.
> 
> Lets take one step back.
> 
> What is the problem with documenting an existing use-case in blkif.h?

Namely taking into account Paul's almost simultaneous reply I'm
in doubt whether this is a use case or an abuse of some readily
available mechanism.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel