On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 07:43:28PM +0000, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Nils Nieuwejaar wrote: > >On Thu 11/29/07 at 18:11 PM, Darren.Moffat at Sun.COM wrote: > >>Nils Nieuwejaar wrote: > >>>When this proposal was originally sent out, there was a bit of concern > >>>expressed on this list about our intention to modify cmdk and possibly > >>>some > >>>future drivers. Offline, I received some rather stronger objections to > >>>this idea, so I have updated the proposal to address those concerns. > >>> > >>>Rather than modifying the existing cmdk, we are now proposing to create a > >>>brand new cmdk that will only be used to access paravirtualized disk > >>>drivers. This approach will leave the existing driver completely > >>>untouched. > >>Please tell me you don't intend to take a copy of the cmdk source to do > >>this ? > >>Is this going to be a very simple driver that happens to have then name > >>cmdk to take advantage of the fact that the driver name is baked in > >>places ? > > > >Exactly. This is a thin shell driver that does nothing but make LDI calls > >to the paravirtual 'xdf' driver. It will be incapable of managing physical > >disks, which is why we need to sequester it in the new i86hvm directory. > > Good, and the only reason for calling it cmdk is because the driver name > gets baked into bootenv.rc, right ? >
basically. it is also baked in /dev links. ed
