From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= Subject: Re: Xen 4.3 development update, and stock-taking Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 16:33:12 +0100 Message-ID: <50F96B38.5080108@citrix.com> References: <50F7CBA4.1070408@citrix.com> <50F7DEED.1050401@eu.citrix.com> <50F91AF6.4020400@citrix.com> <20130118152147.GB9973@phenom.dumpdata.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130118152147.GB9973@phenom.dumpdata.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: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Cc: George Dunlap , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 18/01/13 16:21, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>>> * Multi-page blk rings (external) >>>>> - blkback in kernel (konrad@oracle, ?@intel) >>>>> - qemu blkback >>>>> status: Not started. >>>>> prognosis: UNKNOWN >>>> I will be taking on this project, following Intel, FreeBSD and Konrad >>>> suggestions. Since I'm just starting now, I will mark it as "Fair". >>> >>> OK, thanks for the info. Out of curiosity, if someone were to consider >>> this a blocker, would having someone else working on it speed things up, >>> do you think? Or is it development probably "non-parallelizable"? :-) >> >> Let's wait until we have a clear roadmap about how are we going to >> handle it. This is not related to Xen itself, so I wouldn't see it as a >> blocker, most of the work will be done in the Linux kernel, and the only >> hypervisor part of this might be changes to the block protocol (blkif.h) >> and the ring (ring.h) protocol. > > Did you have a chance to look at the issues I enumerated with the block > protocol? > > Perhaps we should continue the discussion on the "clear roadmap" on that > thread? Yes, I'm currently writing a reply to that email with my proposal, let's continue the discussion there.