Re: hv block drivers

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

 On 08/30/2010 07:43 AM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> Hi Hank,
>
> I wanted to follow up on the block device driver discussion we had at
> LinuxCon, based on some other input I got.
>
> What most people recommended was to make both the hv scsi and the
> hv ata code scsi device drivers, *not* make them standalone block
> drivers as I originally recommended.
>
> The main reason for this is consistent naming of the devices. We
> have a lot of user code that can deal with /dev/sd* devices, but
> introducing the /dev/vd* devices for virtio caused a lot of pain
> that you probably shouldn't have to go through.

We're having the same kind of problem with the Xen xvdX device naming. 
For a fully PV system it doesn't matter to much, but when you've got PV
drivers taking the place of a regular emulated hardware device it would
be nice to have a similar device name.

But there isn't a lot of similarity between the Xen block interface and
SCSI beyond the basic block transfer bits, so I was wondering how good a
match it would really be.

Have you investigated making virtio a scsi device?

    J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/