From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1O0Hk9-00067t-1n for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:11:45 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48716 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1O0Hk6-00067E-P7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:11:43 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Hk4-0008K4-T6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:11:42 -0400 Received: from e8.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.138]:47705) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1O0Hk4-0008JY-Nz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:11:40 -0400 Received: from d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (d01relay05.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.237]) by e8.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o39H2TRe025899 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:02:29 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (d01av04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.224.64]) by d01relay05.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o39HBaG0176532 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:11:36 -0400 Received: from d01av04.pok.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d01av04.pok.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o39HBa6C009212 for ; Fri, 9 Apr 2010 13:11:36 -0400 Message-ID: <4BBF5FC4.2090200@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 10:11:32 -0700 From: jvrao MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [GSoC 2010] Pass-through filesystem support. References: <20100409101836.526762c8@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20100409101836.526762c8@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: Anthony Liguori , kvm-devel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, Mohammed Gamal , Cam Macdonell Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 18:01:01 +0200 > Mohammed Gamal wrote: > >> Hi, >> Now that Cam is almost done with his ivshmem patches, I was thinking >> of another idea for GSoC which is improving the pass-though >> filesystems. >> I've got some questions on that: >> >> 1- What does the community prefer to use and improve? CIFS, 9p, or >> both? And which is better taken up for GSoC. Please look at our recent set of patches. We are developing a 9P server for QEMU and client is already part of mainline Linux. Our goal is to optimize it for virualization environment and will work as FS pass-through mechanism between host and the guest. Here is the latest set of patches.. http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg29267.html Please let us know if you are interested ... we can coordinate. Thanks, JV >> >> 2- With respect to CIFS. I wonder how the shares are supposed to be >> exposed to the guest. Should the Samba server be modified to be able >> to use unix domain sockets instead of TCP ports and then QEMU >> communicating on these sockets. With that approach, how should the >> guest be able to see the exposed share? And what is the problem of >> using Samba with TCP ports? >> >> 3- In addition, I see the idea mentions that some Windows code needs >> to be written to use network shares on a special interface. What's >> that interface? And what's the nature of that Windows code? (a driver >> a la "guest additions"?) > > CC'ing Aneesh as he's working on that. > >