On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 07:37:43AM -0700, Linda wrote: > > > On 12/1/2015 4:47 AM, Wei Liu wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:19:18PM -0500, Neil Sikka wrote: > >>Hi Wei, could you please explain why/how you would have done the project > >>differently now and why these patches are not "good"? From my conversation > >>with Linda, I understood that her code is "Independent of virtio except the > >>9pvirtio specific code, which is used extensively." > >> > >I need to implement a xen transport for 9pfs. Linda was essentially > >doing the same. But she didn't specify the canonical protocol between > >frontend and backend. > For my own edification: In the interests of the limited time of my > internship, we decided I shouldn't do the initialization using the xen > toolstack. Were there are other expediencies that I'm unaware of? >
It's not about toolstack. Toolstack merely sets up xenstore nodes according to the protocol. > I tried to follow the xen handshaking protocol between front and back end at > startup. > Yes, that's the right direction. Following existing convention is good enough for an intern project. Specifying the protocol in detailed is not the requirement for a prototype. But in the end to upstream xen-9pfs a canonical protocol is required. A blessed version of protocol needs to be committed to xen.git tree. We have a bunch of those in xen.git/xen/include/public/io/ directory. Wei. > Thanks. > > Linda > > > >As for "9pvirtio specific code", I think there is misunderstanding > >because though a lot of files in QEMU are prefixed with virtio they are > >actually not specific to virtio at all. I think the "independent of > >virtio ..." part was referring to the new transport she wrote. > > > >Wei. > > > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
