From xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Mon Dec 16 10:58:30 2013 Received: (at maildrop) by bugs.xenproject.org; 16 Dec 2013 10:58:30 +0000 Received: from lists.xen.org ([50.57.142.19]) by bugs.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsVsc-0007Kj-3X for xen-devel-maildrop-Eithu9ie@bugs.xenproject.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:58:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xen.org) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsVod-00050O-8p; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:54:23 +0000 Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsVob-000500-D4 for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:54:21 +0000 Received: from [85.158.143.35:34469] by server-2.bemta-4.messagelabs.com id DB/47-11386-CDBDEA25; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:54:20 +0000 X-Env-Sender: Ian.Campbell@citrix.com X-Msg-Ref: server-9.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1387191258!6060848!1 X-Originating-IP: [66.165.176.63] X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.0 required=7.0 tests=sa_preprocessor: VHJ1c3RlZCBJUDogNjYuMTY1LjE3Ni42MyA9PiAzMDYwNDg=\n X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.16; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 29471 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2013 10:54:20 -0000 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com (HELO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM) (66.165.176.63) by server-9.tower-21.messagelabs.com with RC4-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Dec 2013 10:54:20 -0000 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,494,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="82577421" Received: from accessns.citrite.net (HELO FTLPEX01CL01.citrite.net) ([10.9.154.239]) by FTLPIPO02.CITRIX.COM with ESMTP; 16 Dec 2013 10:54:18 +0000 Received: from [10.80.2.80] (10.80.2.80) by FTLPEX01CL01.citrite.net (10.13.107.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.342.4; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 05:54:18 -0500 Message-ID: <1387191257.20076.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> From: Ian Campbell To: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:54:17 +0000 In-Reply-To: <20131213194326.GA28712@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20131213194326.GA28712@phenom.dumpdata.com> Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc. X-Mailer: Evolution 3.4.4-3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.80.2.80] X-DLP: MIA1 Cc: George Dunlap , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Xen 4.4 development update: Is PVH a blocker? X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xen.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org On Fri, 2013-12-13 at 14:43 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > == Open == > > > Also, xl as opposed to xend, allows me to share a disk without > any fanfare. > > Meaning I can do this: > > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest1 xvda w > xl block-attach phy:/dev/sda latest2 xvda w > > while if I had used 'xend' I had to also append the '!' parameter > to denote it as 'shared'. Do you find that restriction to be valuable in practice? Was it ever reliable? How did it cope with /dev/mapper/FOO-BAR vs /dev/FOO/BAR and other similar aliases (/dev/cdrom etc)? We could certainly cause xl to swallow the '!' for compatibility but is the feature itself necessary? I have a feeling this is mostly implemented by checks in the block scripts rather than the toolstack itself, perhaps libxl drives them a bit differently. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel