From xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Mon Dec 16 15:16:06 2013 Received: (at maildrop) by bugs.xenproject.org; 16 Dec 2013 15:16:06 +0000 Received: from lists.xen.org ([50.57.142.19]) by bugs.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1VsZtu-0001dV-QZ for xen-devel-maildrop-Eithu9ie@bugs.xenproject.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:16:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xen.org) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsZpm-0007Km-8D; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:11:50 +0000 Received: from mail6.bemta4.messagelabs.com ([85.158.143.247]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1VsZpl-0007Kd-Gg for xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:11:49 +0000 Received: from [85.158.143.35:48274] by server-2.bemta-4.messagelabs.com id 6A/A4-11386-4381FA25; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:11:48 +0000 X-Env-Sender: konrad.wilk@oracle.com X-Msg-Ref: server-15.tower-21.messagelabs.com!1387206706!3484283!1 X-Originating-IP: [156.151.31.81] X-SpamReason: No, hits=0.0 required=7.0 tests=sa_preprocessor: VHJ1c3RlZCBJUDogMTU2LjE1MS4zMS44MSA9PiAyODgzMzk=\n X-StarScan-Received: X-StarScan-Version: 6.9.16; banners=-,-,- X-VirusChecked: Checked Received: (qmail 11154 invoked from network); 16 Dec 2013 15:11:47 -0000 Received: from userp1040.oracle.com (HELO userp1040.oracle.com) (156.151.31.81) by server-15.tower-21.messagelabs.com with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 16 Dec 2013 15:11:47 -0000 Received: from acsinet22.oracle.com (acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238]) by userp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.1) with ESMTP id rBGFAgRB025394 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:10:43 GMT Received: from aserz7022.oracle.com (aserz7022.oracle.com [141.146.126.231]) by acsinet22.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBGFAgG8023315 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:10:42 GMT Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by aserz7022.oracle.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rBGFAgql023310; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 15:10:42 GMT Received: from phenom.dumpdata.com (/50.195.21.189) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 07:10:42 -0800 Received: by phenom.dumpdata.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 416D91BFA31; Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:10:41 -0500 (EST) Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 10:10:41 -0500 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk To: Ian Campbell Message-ID: <20131216151041.GA14186@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <20131213194326.GA28712@phenom.dumpdata.com> <1387191257.20076.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1387191257.20076.70.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Source-IP: acsinet22.oracle.com [141.146.126.238] 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 Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:54:17AM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > 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? It protects me from doing silly mistakes. > > Was it ever reliable? How did it cope with /dev/mapper/FOO-BAR > vs /dev/FOO/BAR and other similar aliases (/dev/cdrom etc)? I am not sure - but it did work across device mapper. > > We could certainly cause xl to swallow the '!' for compatibility but is > the feature itself necessary? Not for Xen 4.4. > > 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. I can do some investigation for this. After New Year though. > > Ian. > _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel