From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V2 3/5] libxl: add pvusb API Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2015 09:39:51 +0000 Message-ID: <1425893991.14353.58.camel@citrix.com> References: <1421656131-19366-1-git-send-email-cyliu@suse.com> <1421656131-19366-4-git-send-email-cyliu@suse.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap Cc: Lars Kurth , Ian Jackson , Simon Cao , Chunyan Liu , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, 2015-03-06 at 16:50 +0000, George Dunlap wrote: > > +libxl_device_usb * > > +libxl_device_usb_assignable_list(libxl_ctx *ctx, int *num) > > I'm a bit ambivalent about this one. For people using xl, "lsusb" > should be just fine. Is anyone building a toolstack on top of libxl > directly going to need this functionality? Would libvirt use this > functionality, for instance, or would it use libusb? Or just leave > that to the caller? Do USB devices not need to be bound to some sort of placeholder driver (a la xen-pciback) or at least unbound from their actual driver before they can be assigned to a guest? If so then I would expect a function such as this to list the subset of devices which have been correctly configured for USB passthrough, which would be a subset of the output of lsusb I think. Ian.