On 7/11/05, Ronald G. Minnich <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:
>
> > Yeah, well -- sorta. You probably have a better understanding of the
> > way Xen does stuff than I do. I guess in the current context that is
> > exactly what they would correspond to, but in a 9P-based world, you
> > would only need a single channel. You would mount the exported
> > private namespace containing the devices allocated to your partition
> > over that channel (instead of individually mounting disk, network,
> > etc.)
>
> that's not real xen-device-compatible, but let's go with it for now, just
> to get proof-of-concept going.
>
But I thought that was the whole point - to convince them to use 9P
for resource sharing versus the current stuff. Using 9P for transport
alone just doesn't make sense to me -- let's sell them the whole
enchilada.
-eric
