Re: [PATCH 07/16] SUPPORT.md: Add virtual devices common to ARM and x86

[George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>]

On 11/21/2017 08:29 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> +### QEMU backend hotplugging for xl
>> +
>> +    Status: Supported
> 
> Wouldn't this more appropriately be
> 
> ### QEMU backend hotplugging
> 
>     Status, xl: Supported

You mean, for this whole section (i.e., everything here that says 'for
xl')?  If not, why this one in particular?

>> +## Virtual driver support, guest side
>> +
>> +### Blkfront
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux: Supported
>> +    Status, FreeBSD: Supported, Security support external
>> +    Status, NetBSD: Supported, Security support external
>> +    Status, Windows: Supported
>> +
>> +Guest-side driver capable of speaking the Xen PV block protocol
>> +
>> +### Netfront
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux: Supported
>> +    States, Windows: Supported
>> +    Status, FreeBSD: Supported, Security support external
>> +    Status, NetBSD: Supported, Security support external
>> +    Status, OpenBSD: Supported, Security support external
> 
> Seeing the difference in OSes between the two (with the variance
> increasing in entries further down) - what does the absence of an
> OS on one list, but its presence on another mean? While not
> impossible, I would find it surprising if e.g. OpenBSD had netfront
> but not even a basic blkfront.

Actually -- at least according to the paper presenting PV frontends for
OpenBSD in 2016 [1], they implemented xenstore and netfront frontends,
but not (at least at that point) a disk frontend.

However, blktfront does appear as a feature in OpenBSD 6.1, released in
April [2]; so I'll add that one in.  (Perhaps Roger hadn't heard that it
had been implemented.)

[1] https://www.openbsd.org/papers/asiabsdcon2016-xen-paper.pdf

[2] https://www.openbsd.org/61.html

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel