On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at 01:54:04PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 16/8/07 13:49, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Are these patches intended to be applied now, or are they RFC?
> > They could be applied now, but was expecting people might have some feedback
> > /recommendations for changes - Christian normally has lots of good comments
> > for QEMU related stuff. So if I have to do another revision of the patches
> > I'm fine with it.
> My own feeling is that the xenfb merge is very sensible, but I don't see
> much of a win from merging xenconsoled, and the downside is that you then
> need a qemu-dm instance for every PV guest. I think that requiring qemu-dm
> for more 'featureful' PV guests -- framebuffer, USB, etc -- is well and
> good, but someone who is running more minimal domU configurations --
> console, net, block -- isn't going to want or welcome the rather unnecessary
> per-domU overhead of qemu-dm.
Yep, I can see that would be useful for some folks working in constrained
environments. Of course they probably don't want the XenD overhead either,
but that's a can of worms I won't get into right now ;-)
Thinking about this, I think I can easily re-work the last two patches so
that xenconsoled will continue to process the guest consoles, if-and-only-if
the guest doesn't have a QEMU instance already doing it. That would give us
choice between both deployment scenarios per-guest.
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
Xen-devel mailing list