On 12/1/2015 7:46 AM, Wei Liu wrote:
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.
Thank you.
L
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
