From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Wolf Subject: Re: [4 Patches] New blktap implementation, 2nd try Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:14:14 +0100 Message-ID: <490ADA76.9010800@suse.de> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Dutch Meyer Cc: Andrew Warfield , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Dutch Meyer schrieb: > 1) deprecate-blktap. A patch to deprecate the open source blktap, by > moving it and issuing a warning whenever it is used. No functionality > is modified in this patch, it is just housekeeping. Why would you want to keep the old version around if the new one is so much better? > 2) restore-blktap. A patch to add a new blktap implementation that is > feature equivalent to (or better than) the current blktap. This will > eventually replace the current blktap implementation. Now this is a huge patch, nearly impossible to review. At a first glance I noticed that it shares large parts with the old implementation. So while I believe you that the first patch is only moving things around, I really can't tell what this patch is actually doing. It would be really useful to have the real diff, i.e. keep the old files in patch 1 and modify them here. Best you also split this patch into a patch for the core and one patch for the changes to each driver. I didn't really look into the patch but merely scrolled through it and looked at the diffstat, so maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to lack implementations for tap:qcow2, tap:vmdk and tap:ioemu. Why that? Kevin