This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] PATCH: 0/10: Merge xenfb & xenconsoled into qemu-dm

To: <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] PATCH: 0/10: Merge xenfb & xenconsoled into qemu-dm
From: "Pat Campbell" <plc@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 10:13:02 -0600
Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:13:41 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070816153415.GH16779@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20070816124939.GA16779@xxxxxxxxxx> <C2EA077C.14489%keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070816153415.GH16779@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On Thu, Aug 16, 2007 at  9:34 AM, in message
<20070816153415.GH16779@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Daniel P. Berrange" <berrange@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
> Regards,
> Dan.

Would this patch set, in it's current state, allow a 'featureful' PV guest to 
see a 
DOM0 CDROM as a CD device instead of a block device?  


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>