Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add hypervisor sysfs-like support

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 11.09.19 17:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 11.09.2019 15:01, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > On 11.09.19 13:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > On 11.09.2019 13:29, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > > On 11.09.19 13:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > > > > Second, is xenfs really the best name here?  It is ambiguous with the
> > > > > still-essential (even though it really needs to disappear) Linux
> > > > > filesystem by the name xenfs.
> > > > Yes, I'm aware of that ambiguity. I'm absolutely in favor of finding a
> > > > better name.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe xensysfs?
> > > Or just xensys (albeit that's likely getting ambiguous)? I'm
> > > not fully convinced calling this a file system is a good idea.
> > > Windows' name-value pair store is called registry, for
> > > example, despite it also resembling a file system to a certain
> > > degree.
> > "Registry" doesn't seem correct regarding the potential dynamically
> > generated entries.
> I also didn't mean to suggest "registry" as a name. The Windows
> registry does, however (and despite its name), contain dynamic
> data afaik (certain performance counters for example).
>
> > And with the idea to "mount" it in the dom0 kernel's sysfs I think
> > xensysfs (or xenhypfs?) seems appropriate.
> Well, such "mounting" is going to be indirect, I would assume?
> I.e. not directly forward filesystem like requests as such to
> Xen?
For plain entries (reads and eventually writes) I surely would just
forward them. In case this is possible for directories, too, I'd rather
do no caching in the kernel, so forwarding them would seem to be
appropriate (rejecting anything but reading a directory, of course).


Juergen

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel