From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:10:41 -0500 Message-ID: <20131216151041.GA14186@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20131213194326.GA28712@phenom.dumpdata.com> <1387191257.20076.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1387191257.20076.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:54:17AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:43 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > == Open == > > > > > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without > > any fanfare. > > > > Meaning I can do this: > > > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w > > > > while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter > > to denote it as 'shared'. > > Do you find that restriction to be valuable in practice? It protects me from doing silly mistakes. > > Was it ever reliable? How did it cope with /dev/mapper/FOO-BAR > vs /dev/FOO/BAR and other similar aliases (/dev/cdrom etc)? I am not sure - but it did work across device mapper. > > We could certainly cause xl to swallow the '!' for compatibility but is > the feature itself necessary? Not for Xen 4.4. > > I have a feeling this is mostly implemented by checks in the block > scripts rather than the toolstack itself, perhaps libxl drives them a > bit differently. I can do some investigation for this. After New Year though. > > Ian. >