Re: [PATCH v2 0/7] libxl: add support for FreeBSD block hotplug scripts

["Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>]

El 29/2/16 a les 15:26, George Dunlap ha escrit:
> On 29/02/16 12:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
>> El 29/2/16 a les 13:15, George Dunlap ha escrit:
>>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:25 PM, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> This series enables using hotplug scripts with the FreeBSD blkback
>>>> implementation. Since FreeBSD blkback can use both block devices and regular
>>>> RAW files as disks, the physical-device xenstore backend node is now
>>>> OS-specific, Linux and NetBSD will encode the device major and minor numbers
>>>> there, while FreeBSD simply puts an absolute path to a disk image.
>>>
>>> Just to catch me up here -- is this an incompatible thing  that
>>> FreeBSD *already* does, or something you're adding with this series?
>>
>> I assume you mean the usage of the "physical-device" node, right? In
>> which case, this is something that I'm adding with this series (and some
>> FreeBSD kernel changes, of course). Current FreeBSD code doesn't use
>> physical-device at all.
> 
> So there are cases where libxl could use the actual path to the
> resulting device (if available) as well.  Rather than overloading
> physical-device, what about making a new node, with a path, that can be
> used by all of them?
> 
> I submitted such a patch here:
> 
> <1439233885-22218-4-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
> 
> As part of a series allowing HVM domains to use hotplug scripts.
> 
> Thoughts?

TBH, I thought we were planning to use local attach to deal with both
HVM guests with hotplug scripts and HVM guests using disks on driver
domains. The solution you propose only solves the first part (hotplug
scripts), but for disks coming from driver domains we would still need
to use local-attach, so I would be in favour of always using local attach.

Roger.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel