On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 02:47:14PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH v11 1/2] libxl: add support for vscsi"):
> > What Ian wanted was that we need clear correlation of xl configuration
> > syntax with libxl API fields. For example, for a FOO device
>
> Thanks for explaining, yes.
>
> > However, I don't think that can be easily achieved in the case of pvscsi
> > because we need to support both legacy Xen-classic kernel and new PVOPS
> > kernel. Olaf, please correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> That is unfortunate. Also I am confused, then: if it is not possible
> to support a sensible semantics (with an appropriate syntax) at the
> libxl level, how is it possible to do so at the xl level ?
>
As I understand the syntax comes from xend era so we need to continue to
support it. And then we invent this whole control and device hierarchy
for usb and scsi device. PVUSB looks better in terms of syntax because
it's all new, but we probably don't have the luxury for pvscsi.
Wei.
> (I confess I haven't reread the patch in detail today...)
>
> Thanks,
> Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
