From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/2] libxl: Introduce functions to add and remove USB devices to an HVM guest Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2013 16:45:24 +0100 Message-ID: <5177FE14.4010800@eu.citrix.com> References: <1366387166-21197-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> <1366807135.20256.328.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> <5177DF05.50907@eu.citrix.com> <1366811466.20256.363.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1366811466.20256.363.camel@zakaz.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: Anthony Perard , "sstanisi@cbnco.com" , Roger Pau Monne , Ian Jackson , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 24/04/13 14:51, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2013-04-24 at 14:32 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> There's also the translation of "AUTO" protocol into PV or HVM, and > This made me wonder, how is libxl_device_usb_protocol different from the > type of the domain? Can you (or is the intention) use PV with an HVM > domain? I suppose DEVICEMODEL is HVM only? The intention is to allow HVM guests to use either DEVICEMODEL or PV as protocols. > Is "protocol" really the right word for this? I'd half expect it to mean > USB 1.0 vs 2.0 vs 3.0. For NICS we call this Enum libxl_nic_type. FWIW But we're already using 'type' for the device type. :-) I think for nics it makes sense to call it a 'type', as for NICs we refer to the *emulated device* as a NIC, or the PV device as a NIC, which is then (virtually) plugged into a bridge somewhere. But in this case I don't think it makes sense, as it's the actual host device you care about, and the way the guest talks to it is either via PV or qemu. "Protocol" may not be the very best option, but at least it gives you the idea of a conduit. -George