On 11/01/2010 11:07 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 01.11.2010, at 12:01, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/01/2010 10:49 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 01.11.2010, at 11:45, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 11/01/2010 10:01 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Xenner emulates parts of libxc, so we can not use the real xen infrastructure
when running xen pv guests without xen.
This patch adds support for event channel communication.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf<ag...@suse.de>
Has anyone checked with the Xen folks about supporting this type of
functionality in libxc directly?
The issue I have with libxc is that it goes orthogonal to the qemu
infrastructure way of doing things. If we base on libxc, we will never be able
to do cross-architecture execution of xen pv guests. Do we really want to go
that way?
IIUC, this is a mini-libxc that you enable by mucking with LD_LIBRARY_PATH such
that you can run things like xenstored unmodified. What I'm really asking is
whether there has been a discussion about a more pleasant way to do this that
the Xen guys would feel comfortable with.
I'd feel a little weird if someone was replacing a part of QEMU via
LD_LIBRARY_PATH trickery. It's better to try to work out a proper solution
with the upstream community than to do trickery.
I'm not entirely opposed to this if the Xen guys say they don't want anything
to do with Xenner, but we should have the discussion at least.
I agree about the discussion part, that's why we're all gathering in Boston
this week, right?
Fair enough :-)
But technically, this code really just bumps all libxc calls to indirect
function calls that go through a struct. If we're using xenner, we use our own
implementation, if we're using xen, we use xen's. The thing is that with xenner
we usually don't have xen infrastructure available and most likely don't want
to start any either.
Yeah, I guess I'd just like to see a more "polite" solution.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Alex
