[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C7BD9A6.1090108@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:17:42 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Hank Janssen <hjanssen@...rosoft.com>,
"'virtualization@...ts.osdl.org'" <virtualization@...ts.osdl.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <Xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>
Subject: Re: hv block drivers
On 08/30/2010 07:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hi Hank,
>
> I wanted to follow up on the block device driver discussion we had at
> LinuxCon, based on some other input I got.
>
> What most people recommended was to make both the hv scsi and the
> hv ata code scsi device drivers, *not* make them standalone block
> drivers as I originally recommended.
>
> The main reason for this is consistent naming of the devices. We
> have a lot of user code that can deal with /dev/sd* devices, but
> introducing the /dev/vd* devices for virtio caused a lot of pain
> that you probably shouldn't have to go through.
We're having the same kind of problem with the Xen xvdX device naming.
For a fully PV system it doesn't matter to much, but when you've got PV
drivers taking the place of a regular emulated hardware device it would
be nice to have a similar device name.
But there isn't a lot of similarity between the Xen block interface and
SCSI beyond the basic block transfer bits, so I was wondering how good a
match it would really be.
Have you investigated making virtio a scsi device?
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists