From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linda Subject: Re: 9p file system for xen Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 07:37:43 -0700 Message-ID: <565DB0B7.9060505@jma3.com> References: <20151116151658.GA22829@citrix.com> <564A0608.8050904@jma3.com> <20151116165129.GA25764@citrix.com> <564A10E1.4070607@jma3.com> <20151116173559.GC25764@citrix.com> <564A98CB.9090506@jma3.com> <564B8505.3060302@jma3.com> <20151118095627.GJ1495@citrix.com> <20151201114741.GO21588@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20151201114741.GO21588@citrix.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: Wei Liu , Neil Sikka Cc: Julien Grall , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 12/1/2015 4:47 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:19:18PM -0500, Neil Sikka wrote: >> Hi Wei, could you please explain why/how you would have done the project >> differently now and why these patches are not "good"? From my conversation >> with Linda, I understood that her code is "Independent of virtio except the >> 9pvirtio specific code, which is used extensively." >> > I need to implement a xen transport for 9pfs. Linda was essentially > doing the same. But she didn't specify the canonical protocol between > frontend and backend. For my own edification: In the interests of the limited time of my internship, we decided I shouldn't do the initialization using the xen toolstack. Were there are other expediencies that I'm unaware of? I tried to follow the xen handshaking protocol between front and back end at startup. Thanks. Linda > > As for "9pvirtio specific code", I think there is misunderstanding > because though a lot of files in QEMU are prefixed with virtio they are > actually not specific to virtio at all. I think the "independent of > virtio ..." part was referring to the new transport she wrote. > > Wei. >