From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: BLKTAPCTRL[2375]: blktapctrl_linux.c:86: blktap0 open failed, tap: vs. tap2: Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 07:48:39 +0100 Message-ID: References: <20100727062101.GL17817@reaktio.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20100727062101.GL17817@reaktio.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: Pasi =?ISO-8859-1?B?S+Rya2vkaW5lbg==?= , Ian Campbell Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Xen-devel , Dante Cinco , Jim Fehlig , Daniel Stodden List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 27/07/2010 07:21, "Pasi K=E4rkk=E4inen" wrote: >>> That sounds like a lot of fallout on xen-users. >>> Especially for people who just want their guests to boot. >>>=20 >>> Maybe the whole notation should have rather been some _optional_ blktap >>> =3D {1|2} cfg key, only for those who actually care? >>=20 >> FWIW, I completely agree with this. >>=20 >=20 > Yeah, especially when blktap2 is the only available on in pvops dom0 kern= els.. > All the users have tap:something in their cfgfiles currently.. Well the patch to make the distinction is currently in xen-unstable and xen-4.0. Should it be reverted from one or both? Actually it is up to IanJ or Stefano to decide on that now. -- Keir