From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 35/35] Add Xen virtual block device driver. Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 08:50:23 -0500 Message-ID: <4423F91F.4060007@garzik.org> References: <4421D943.1090804@garzik.org> <1143202673.18986.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> <4423E853.1040707@garzik.org> <4423F60B.6020805@garzik.org> <1143207657.2882.65.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1143207657.2882.65.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arjan van de Ven Cc: Alan Cox , Ian Pratt , Anthony Liguori , Chris Wright , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ian Pratt , ian.pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk, SCSI Mailing List List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 08:37 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Jeff Garzik wrote: >>> In fact, SCSI should make a few things easier, because the notion of >>> host+bus topology is already present, and notion of messaging is already >>> present, so you don't have to recreate that in a Xen block device >>> infrastructure. >> Another benefit of SCSI: when an IBM hypervisor in the Linux kernel >> switched to SCSI, that allowed them to replace several drivers (virt >> disk, virt cdrom, virt floppy?) with a single virt-SCSI driver. > but there's a generic one for that: iSCSI > so in theory you only need to provide a network driver then ;) Talk about lots of overhead :) OTOH, I bet that T10 is acting at high speed, right this second, to form a committee, and multiple sub-committees, to standardize SCSI transported over XenBus. SXP anyone? :) Jeff