From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: BLKTAPCTRL[2375]: blktapctrl_linux.c:86: blktap0 open failed Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2010 10:42:37 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1280050032.4626.1282.camel@ramone.somacoma.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1280050032.4626.1282.camel@ramone.somacoma.net> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Daniel Stodden Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Xen-devel , Jim Fehlig , Dante Cinco List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 25/07/2010 10:27, "Daniel Stodden" wrote: >>> Uhm.. is this change intentional? >> >> xen-unstable:21338 and xen-4.0-testing:21140. So yes. > > That sounds like a lot of fallout on xen-users. > Especially for people who just want their guests to boot. > > Maybe the whole notation should have rather been some _optional_ blktap > = {1|2} cfg key, only for those who actually care? > > [As much as the whole disk notation should probably always just have > been :, with a separately configurable -> > mapping for people who want to override backend choices (such > file->loopback vs file->aio).] > > I guess the latter cannot be fixed. But maybe the former? I don't personally have an opinion on it. I'm pretty sure Jim was having other problems if this distinction wasn't made in the config file. But perhaps it was rash to backport it to 4.0-testing, all the same. -- Keir