[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] [XEND] alignment of vtpm support in xenapi, documentation and libxen

[Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 01/30/2007
11:13:35 AM:

> On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:53:24AM -0500, Stefan Berger wrote:
> 
> > Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 01/30/2007 10:32:40
AM:
> > 
> > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 10:23:13AM -0500, Stefan Berger
wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ewan Mellor <ewan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 01/30/2007
10:12:10 AM:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 09:29:47AM -0500, Stefan
Berger wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > This patch aligns vTPM support in the Xen-API,
documentation and
> > > > lib-xen
> > > > > > (after the recent changes).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > What's the intention here?  You've removed
the get_instance calls,
> > but
> > > > not the
> > > > > instance field from the documentation.  Assuming
that that's just a
> > > > mistake,
> > > > > and you meant to remove the instance field, we're
left with a VTPM
> > class
> > > > that
> > > > > has nothing other than a reference to a VM and
a reference to a
> > backend
> > > > > domain.  What are the semantics of that object
now?
> > > >
> > > > The instance will remain to be assigned by the hotplug
scripts. In the
> > > > old-style of VM configuration file one could still
pass it as
> > parameter,
> > > > but its ignored. I rather not have it passed in as
a parameter by the
> > > > Xen-API, either. From what I can see a getter for it
is not useful,
> > > > either, since I want the instance number to be hidden
from management
> > > > software.
> > >
> > > What we're left with seems like a pretty expensive way of
saying
> > "VTPM_backend
> > > = N".  Is there really nothing else that's configurable?
 We could just
> > put
> > > this into VM.other_config if that's the only thing that
you need, which
> > would
> > > make configuring a VTPM a lot easier.
> > 
> > I would like to treat the vTPM as a device like VIF and VBDs
with create
> > and destroy methods exported to management software so that a
TPM device
> > can be added to a VM similar to other devices and possibly removed
when
> > the VM is not running.
> 
> Well you'll certainly be able to remove it, whichever way it's modelled.
 I'm
> not sure that treating the VTPM as a device is worth the cost, but
if you
> prefer it that way, that's fine by me.
> 
> I'll just remove that instance field from the docs, and leave it at
that.
> 

Thank you. I noticed there's an error in the patch
to XendDomainInfo. If you replace the has_type() part with has_key() then
test 9 passes. Sorry for that.

  Stefan


> Ewan.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel