From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: hv block drivers Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:17:42 -0700 Message-ID: <4C7BD9A6.1090108@goop.org> References: <201008301643.42253.arnd@arndb.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201008301643.42253.arnd@arndb.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: Hank Janssen , "'virtualization@lists.osdl.org'" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Stefano Stabellini , "Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org On 08/30/2010 07:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > Hi Hank, > > I wanted to follow up on the block device driver discussion we had at > LinuxCon, based on some other input I got. > > What most people recommended was to make both the hv scsi and the > hv ata code scsi device drivers, *not* make them standalone block > drivers as I originally recommended. > > The main reason for this is consistent naming of the devices. We > have a lot of user code that can deal with /dev/sd* devices, but > introducing the /dev/vd* devices for virtio caused a lot of pain > that you probably shouldn't have to go through. We're having the same kind of problem with the Xen xvdX device naming. For a fully PV system it doesn't matter to much, but when you've got PV drivers taking the place of a regular emulated hardware device it would be nice to have a similar device name. But there isn't a lot of similarity between the Xen block interface and SCSI beyond the basic block transfer bits, so I was wondering how good a match it would really be. Have you investigated making virtio a scsi device? J