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:
>>>> On 13.11.17 at 16:41, <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
>> +### PV USB support for xl
>> +
>> +    Status: Supported
>> +
>> +### PV 9pfs support for xl
>> +
>> +    Status: Tech Preview
> 
> Why are these two being called out, but xl support for other device
> types isn't?

Do you see how big this document is? :-)  If you think something else
needs to be covered, don't ask why I didn't mention it, just say what
you think I missed.

> 
>> +### QEMU backend hotplugging for xl
>> +
>> +    Status: Supported
> 
> Wouldn't this more appropriately be
> 
> ### QEMU backend hotplugging
> 
>     Status, xl: Supported

Maybe -- let me think about it.

> 
> ?
> 
>> +## 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.

Good catch.  Roger suggested that I add the OpenBSD Netfront; he's away
so I'll have to see if I can figure out if they have blkfront support or
not.

>> +Guest-side driver capable of speaking the Xen PV networking protocol
>> +
>> +### PV Framebuffer (frontend)
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux (xen-fbfront): Supported
>> +
>> +Guest-side driver capable of speaking the Xen PV Framebuffer protocol
>> +
>> +### PV Console (frontend)
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux (hvc_xen): Supported
>> +    Status, Windows: Supported
>> +    Status, FreeBSD: Supported, Security support external
>> +    Status, NetBSD: Supported, Security support external
>> +
>> +Guest-side driver capable of speaking the Xen PV console protocol
>> +
>> +### PV keyboard (frontend)
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux (xen-kbdfront): Supported
>> +    Status, Windows: Supported
>> +
>> +Guest-side driver capable of speaking the Xen PV keyboard protocol
> 
> Are these three active/usable in guests regardless of whether the
> guest is being run PV, PVH, or HVM? If not, wouldn't this need
> spelling out?

In theory I think they could be used; I suspect it's just that they
aren't used.  Let me see if I can think of a way to concisely express that.

>> +## Virtual device support, host side
>> +
>> +### Blkback
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux (blkback): Supported
> 
> Strictly speaking, if the driver name is to be spelled out here in
> the first place, it's xen-blkback here and ...
> 
>> +    Status, FreeBSD (blkback): Supported, Security support external
>> +    Status, NetBSD (xbdback): Supported, security support external
>> +    Status, QEMU (xen_disk): Supported
>> +    Status, Blktap2: Deprecated
>> +
>> +Host-side implementations of the Xen PV block protocol
>> +
>> +### Netback
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux (netback): Supported
> 
> ... xen-netback here for the upstream kernels.

Ack.


>> +### PV USB (backend)
>> +
>> +    Status, Linux: Experimental
> 
> What existing/upstream code does this refer to?

I guess a bunch of patches posted to a mailing list?  Yeah, that's
probably something we should take out.

 -George

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