From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: George Dunlap Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Use system blktap Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 15:24:07 +0100 Message-ID: <559BE107.4030205@eu.citrix.com> References: <1436179903-449-1-git-send-email-george.dunlap@eu.citrix.com> <1436278898.25646.213.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1436278898.25646.213.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Wei Liu , Felipe Franciosi , Dave Scott , Jonathan Ludlam , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Ian Jackson , Roger Pau Monne List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 07/07/2015 03:21 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-07-06 at 11:51 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > >> George Dunlap (6): >> libxl: Make local_initiate_attach more rational >> libxl: Remove linux udev rules >> tools: Add a block-tap script for setting up tapdisks via tap-ctl >> libxl: Use the block-tap script for LIBXL_DISK_BACKEND_TAP >> tools: Remove in-tree blktap2 >> libxl: Add more logging to hotplug script path > > Could some subset of this series safely go in now? I'm thinking in > particular of: > libxl: Make local_initiate_attach more rational > libxl: Add more logging to hotplug script path > > Which look useful and standalone, assuming the first doesn't need any of > the rest. > > I'm not sure if the udev stuff makes sense without the blktap script > stuff (which appears to need a little more discussion if nothing else). > I'll take it if you say it is safe to do so... The first three can go in without any regressions, and I think would be useful. The udev stuff fixes a bug for *all* block scripts -- including, block-iscsi and block-nbd. -George