From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: PATCH: 0/10: Merge xenfb & xenconsoled into qemu-dm Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:54:04 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20070816124939.GA16779@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070816124939.GA16779@redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Daniel P. Berrange" Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 16/8/07 13:49, "Daniel P. Berrange" wrote: >> Are these patches intended to be applied now, or are they RFC? > > They could be applied now, but was expecting people might have some feedback > /recommendations for changes - Christian normally has lots of good comments > for QEMU related stuff. So if I have to do another revision of the patches > I'm fine with it. My own feeling is that the xenfb merge is very sensible, but I don't see much of a win from merging xenconsoled, and the downside is that you then need a qemu-dm instance for every PV guest. I think that requiring qemu-dm for more 'featureful' PV guests -- framebuffer, USB, etc -- is well and good, but someone who is running more minimal domU configurations -- console, net, block -- isn't going to want or welcome the rather unnecessary per-domU overhead of qemu-dm. So I think that qemu-dm for PV guests should be optional, and automatically enabled only if a config option that requires qemu is enabled. -- Keir