From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: David Vrabel <email@example.com>
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>,
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] blkif.h: document scsi/0x12/0x83 node
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:10:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160322141006.GA26390@char.us.oracle.com> (raw)
On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 01:41:43PM +0000, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 22/03/16 12:55, Bob Liu wrote:
> > On 03/17/2016 07:12 PM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >> David Vrabel writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH] blkif.h: document scsi/0x12/0x83 node"):
> >>> On 16/03/16 13:59, Bob Liu wrote:
> >>>> But we'd like to get the VPD information(of underlying storage device) also in Linux blkfront, even blkfront is not a SCSI device.
> >>> Why does blkback/blkfront need to involved here? This is just some
> >>> xenstore keys that can be written by the toolstack and directly read by
> >>> the relevant application in the guest.
> > They want a more generic way because the application may run on all kinds of environment including baremetal.
> > So they prefers to just call ioctl(SG_IO) against a storage device.
> >> I'm getting rather a different picture here than at first. Previously
> >> I thought you had some 3rd-party application, not under your control,
> >> which expected to see this VPD data.
> >> But now I think that you're saying the application is under your own
> >> control. I don't understand why synthetic VPD data is the best way to
> >> give your application the information it needs.
> >> What is the application doing with this VPD data ? I mean,
> >> which specific application functions, and how do they depend on the
> >> VPD data ?
> > From the feedbacks I just got, they do *not* want the details to be in public.
> It is difficult to suggest how it should be done correctly without this
Just think of it as a black box.
> I also find it difficult to see a use case where running the storage
> software in the guest (instead of in the backend) is sensible or desirable.
Are you suggesting that doing backend drivers is not sensible?
> > Anyway, I think this is not a block of this patch.
> > In Windows PV block driver, we already use the same way to get the raw INQUIRY data.
> > * The Windows PV block driver accepts ioctl(SG_IO).
> > * Then it reads this /scsi/0x12/0x83 node.
> > * Then return the raw INQURIY data back to ioctl.
> > Since Linux guest also wants to do the same thing, let's making this mechanism to be a generic interface!
> > I'll post a patch adding ioctl(SG_IO) support to xen-blkfront together with a updated version of this patch soon.
> I do not think this feature is generally useful outside of this
> unspecified use case. I do not think that supplying details about
> underlying storage device (beyond generic properties) to guests is
> sensible (e.g., what if the guest snapshot is restored on different
The restore process (xl) can update the XenStore key with the new storage.
> And thus I do not not think we should either: a) make this part of the
> blkif ABI; or b) add support to xen-blkfront or xen-blkback.
It is already coded in Windows PV drivers so I am not following why
codyfing this in the blkif.h is harmful?
> Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel mailing list
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-03-22 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-16 3:09 [RFC PATCH] blkif.h: document scsi/0x12/0x83 node Bob Liu
2016-03-16 7:16 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-16 12:36 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-16 13:59 ` Bob Liu
2016-03-16 14:07 ` Paul Durrant
2016-03-17 5:04 ` Bob Liu
2016-03-16 14:32 ` David Vrabel
2016-03-17 5:07 ` Bob Liu
2016-03-17 11:12 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-17 11:18 ` David Vrabel
2016-03-17 11:20 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-22 12:55 ` Bob Liu
2016-03-22 13:41 ` David Vrabel
2016-03-22 14:10 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2016-03-22 14:38 ` David Vrabel
2016-03-22 14:43 ` Paul Durrant
2016-03-22 15:09 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-22 15:25 ` Paul Durrant
2016-03-22 16:14 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-22 16:50 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-22 17:39 ` Paul Durrant
2016-03-22 15:12 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-22 15:27 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-22 16:11 ` Ian Jackson
2016-03-22 16:38 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-03-22 16:25 ` Jan Beulich
2016-03-16 14:33 ` Ian Jackson
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).