Re: [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. emulated, backward compatibility etc

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>]

  On 07/29/2010 09:14 AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> Stefano Stabellini writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. emulated, backward compatibility etc"):
>>> On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>>> Well, no, they can't, because their bootloader probably doesn't
>>>> understand anything besides what they're actually using.
>>> they only have to change the device name, not the device class
>> Surely you can't steal only one minor number ?
> yes, that's what we do.

More than one minor, surely?  One for each device.

>>>> Certainly stealing the major number for scsi disks seems quite
>>>> dangerous.  pv-usb is hardly that unlikely a scenario.
>>>
>>> we are not doing that for pvusb
>> pv-usb =>  usb mass storage =>  scsi disks
>
> I mean there is no such thing as pv-usb.

Well, it hasn't been ported to pvops yet.  I've been getting promises of 
patches any month now for a couple of years.

I wonder if blkfront could register itself with the scsi subsystem 
rather than directly as a block device?

     J