WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks

To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks
From: Michal Novotny <minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 14:20:27 +0200
Cc: "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 05:23:07 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C21F99E.7070807@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/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C8456846.181EC%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C204D8C.3020303@xxxxxxxxxx> <19488.53018.201328.781032@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21EDA5.5070100@xxxxxxxxxx> <19489.61339.878715.309115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21F034.7060501@xxxxxxxxxx> <19489.62735.769351.371689@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21F5DC.5050806@xxxxxxxxxx> <19489.63562.359937.534740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C21F99E.7070807@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100430 Fedora/3.0.4-3.fc13 Thunderbird/3.0.4
On 06/23/2010 02:10 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 06/23/2010 02:04 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
Michal Novotny writes ("Re: [PATCH] Fix restore handling checks"):
Are you saying that it's OK for administrators to violate the IDE specs
and do it the way that is should never be done since this way it's not
working on bare-metal systems ? This is the breach and it shouldn't be
done this way so why to allow it? Shouldn't we care the code complies
with the specifications to have it done the right way?
The job of the programmer is to give effect to the wishes of the
users, not to comply with rules from elsewhere.  If the wishes of the
users conflict with rules from elsewhere, including specs, then the
programmer should do what the user wants.
Telling him that he wanted something that cannot be _emulated_ 
accurately is also a possibility.  But we can agree to disagree here 
and Michal can remove this part of the patch.
Paolo

Well, just one correction to this Paolo. It can be emulated but the 
emulation doesn't comply to the specifications and since it was never 
supported at least for HVM guests prior to my patch to fix read-only 
image handling so it shouldn't break anything so if it was not emulated 
before the patch I sent 13 days ago why not to emulate/implement it the 
right way? I don't see any reason to emulate it the wrong way since we 
know the right way that's been implemented/fixed just 13 days ago - at 
least for HVM guests. If users want to use read-only drives they can use 
SCSI drives so what's the problem here?
Surely, I can remove this part of the patch but I'm just trying to tell 
the readers of this thread that I don't see much point in having the 
wrong implementation. I don't think users want to do it the wrong way 
and I think they could understand that this is not supported and that 
they should use SCSI drive definition for read-only drives instead.
--
Michal Novotny<minovotn@xxxxxxxxxx>, RHCE
Virtualization Team (xen userspace), Red Hat


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