From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] virtio-blk: add SGI_IO passthru support Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:50:04 +0200 Message-ID: <20090429105004.GB7846@lst.de> References: <20090427082606.GA32604@lst.de> <49F5C303.3060003@codemonkey.ws> <20090428095154.GB4137@lst.de> <200904282109.52905.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Hannes Reinecke , Rusty Russell , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Christian Borntraeger Return-path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:37883 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752949AbZD2KvE (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:51:04 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904282109.52905.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Yes, virtio-scsi is also something we were thinking of. The last time we discussed this idea of SCSI passthrough internally, we stumbled over error recovery. Who is responsible for the error recovery? The host, the guest, or both? Are there problems, which will trigger error recovery in the guest and host midlayer at the same time? To be honest, my scsi knowledge is very limited, so I dont know if that is a real problem. I'm not that far with planning yet. The best way would be to do real error handling in the host probably. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lz7NN-0003jL-8L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:50:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Lz7NH-0003it-Np for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:50:51 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45933 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Lz7NH-0003iq-KV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:50:47 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.210]:37871) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_3DES_EDE_CBC_SHA1:24) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Lz7NH-0002RM-17 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 29 Apr 2009 06:50:47 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2009 12:50:04 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] virtio-blk: add SGI_IO passthru support Message-ID: <20090429105004.GB7846@lst.de> References: <20090427082606.GA32604@lst.de> <49F5C303.3060003@codemonkey.ws> <20090428095154.GB4137@lst.de> <200904282109.52905.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200904282109.52905.borntraeger@de.ibm.com> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christian Borntraeger Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Rusty Russell , Christoph Hellwig , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Hannes Reinecke On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 09:09:52PM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote: > Yes, virtio-scsi is also something we were thinking of. The last time we discussed this idea of SCSI passthrough internally, we stumbled over error recovery. Who is responsible for the error recovery? The host, the guest, or both? Are there problems, which will trigger error recovery in the guest and host midlayer at the same time? To be honest, my scsi knowledge is very limited, so I dont know if that is a real problem. I'm not that far with planning yet. The best way would be to do real error handling in the host probably.