From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. emulated,
	backward compatibility etc
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 09:37:22 -0700
Message-ID: <4C51AE42.5010702@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>	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1007291600030.19809@kaball-desktop>	<19537.41521.772417.34655@mariner.uk.xensource.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1007291657550.19809@kaball-desktop>	<19537.42963.743949.157090@mariner.uk.xensource.com>	<alpine.DEB.2.00.1007291713250.19809@kaball-desktop>	<4C51AC7B.4060006@goop.org>
	<19537.44422.995779.585778@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <19537.44422.995779.585778@mariner.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>, Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

  On 07/29/2010 09:34 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC] Virtual disk configuration, PV vs. emulated, backward compatibility etc"):
>> I wonder if blkfront could register itself with the scsi subsystem
>> rather than directly as a block device?
> I bet that would mean it would have to deal with SCSI command blocks
> and stuff, so I doubt it.

Well, random ide/ata devices are now part of scsi via libata, and they 
presumably can not deal with raw scsi commands.

     J