On 7/11/05, Ronald G. Minnich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>
> > Now that he has recover more or less working, Gorka is going to take a
> > look at this. Burning a Xen CD for him right now. A question for you
> > Ron - would it be bad to prototype on the more stable Xen 2.0? I'd hate
> > to waste time if too much of the device channel interface is chaning for
> > 3.0...
>
> newsham can tell us more. But my inclination, given the spin rate of 3.0,
> is to go for 2.0 for proof-of-concept. After all, to get it working on
> 3.0, you have to first finish the port of plan 9 to 3.0 ...
>
Well, we're going to prototype stuff with v9fs on Linux to get stuff
working quickly, then move to Plan 9 native.
>
> it's be nice to have a '#X' or something so:
>
> bind '#X' /dev/xen
> and then see /dev/xen/net0, /dev/xen/disk0, and so on, and then
>
Oi - my gut is that this sounds wrong. What would make more sense is
for #X to look more like devsrv, with the virtual channels
representing. Then you could mount /dev/xen/dom0 /n/dom0 and then
bind as you like.
-eric
