Re: [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

[Olaf Hering <olaf@aepfle.de>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1168 bytes --]

Am Fri, 1 Dec 2017 10:21:46 +0000
schrieb Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>:

> In Olaf's case, he cares about knowing whether the domain runs the
> controlling toolstack, he doesn't care about if it is the hardware
> domain or not, so my conclusion was using that flag was wrong.

I think this is not entirely accurate. Right now the term "dom0" is 
a mix of "has access to host (IO) hardware" and "runs the toolstack".

ConditionVirtualization= today lacks such details as well.
"xen" means domU, and "none" is dom0, simply to handle "dom0" like "native"
so that all services that want access to "host hardware" can start.

One could argue that passing a PCI device to a domU may also require
.service files to manage that PCI device in some way. The specifc case
which triggered all the suggested changes was smartd, which is not
supposed to run in "VMs". If a SATA card is provided to a domU it may
be a good idea to monitor the attached disks as well.

So in some way Jan is correct with his suggestion to use XENFEAT_dom0
instead of "control_d". I will do some research about when it became available
and update the patch description.

Olaf

[-- Attachment #1.2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 195 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 157 bytes --]

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