Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07/16] SUPPORT.md: Add virtual devices common to ARM and x86

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11/22/2017 11:05 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 21.11.17 at 18:20, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2017 11:41 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 21.11.17 at 11:56, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2017 08:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 13.11.17 at 16:41, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> +### PV USB support for xl
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    Status: Supported
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +### PV 9pfs support for xl
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +    Status: Tech Preview
>>>>>
>>>>> Why are these two being called out, but xl support for other device
>>>>> types isn't?
>>>>
>>>> Do you see how big this document is? :-)  If you think something else
>>>> needs to be covered, don't ask why I didn't mention it, just say what
>>>> you think I missed.
>>>
>>> Well, (not very) implicitly here: The same for all other PV protocols.
>>
>> Oh, I see -- you didn't read my comment below the `---` pointing this
>> out.  :-)
> 
> Oops, sorry.
> 
>> Yes, I wasn't quite sure what to do here.  We already list all the PV
>> protocols in at least 2 places (frontend and backend support); it seemed
>> a bit redundant to list them all again in xl and/or libxl support.
>>
>> Except, of course, that there are a number of protocols *not* plumbed
>> through the toolstack yet -- PVSCSI being one example.
>>
>> Any suggestions would be welcome.
> 
> How about putting that as a note to the respective frontend /
> backend entries? And then, wouldn't lack of xl support anyway
> mean "experimental" at best?

Yes.

Since the toolstack mainly sets up the backend, I added a  note in the
'backend' section saying that unless otherwise noted, "Tech preview" and
"Supported" imply xl support for creating backends.

We might want to add in libvirt support enumeration at some point.

 -George

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