From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. emulated, backward compatibility etc Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:29:47 -0700 Message-ID: <4C51AC7B.4060006@goop.org> References: <1280246290.5872.8932.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <19536.21817.469833.377542@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <4C505E9E.2090109@goop.org> <19537.38227.38120.755998@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <19537.41521.772417.34655@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <19537.42963.743949.157090@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian Campbell , xen-devel , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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