Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 5/6] Add a section in xl.cfg(5) describing 'channels'

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2014-06-16 at 10:49 +0100, David Scott wrote:
> Signed-off-by: David Scott <dave.scott@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 |   63 
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 63 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5 b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
> index a94d037..00f8905 100644
> --- a/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5
> +++ b/docs/man/xl.cfg.pod.5

Fold into the xl patch please.

> @@ -470,6 +470,69 @@ L<qemu(1)> manpage. The default is B<en-us>.
>  
>  =back
>  
> +=item B<channel=[ "CHANNEL_SPEC_STRING", "CHANNEL_SPEC_STRING", ...]>
> +
> +Specifies the virtual channels to be provided to the guest. A
> +channel is a bidirectional byte stream, a private connection between
> +the backend and the frontend, which resembles a serial port. Typical
> +uses for channels include transmitting VM configuration after boot
> +and signalling to in-guest agents. Please see F<docs/misc/channels.txt>
> +for more details.

You can add that here too, or first.

Perhaps insert words like "low bandwidth" into this?

> +=item C<name=NAME>
> +
> +Specify the string name for this device. This should be a well-known
> +name for the specific application (e.g. guest agent) and should be used
> +by the frontend to connect the application to the right channel device.
> +This parameter is mandatory.

Is there a registry of well known names somewhere?

> +=item B<type=FILE>:
> +
> +The backend should be connected to a file such that the
> +console output is read and spooled to the file (e.g. for logging).

Are there any provisions for rotating this log or does this option let
me fill up dom0's filesystem?

> +=item B<type=SOCKET>:
> +
> +The backend should be connected to the equivalent of
> +a Unix domain socket.

equivalent to or actually to one?

Are you trying to suggest that a FIFO or named pipe etc would be
suitable too?

> +
> +=item B<type=PTY>:
> +
> +The backend should be connected to the equivalent of a
> +pty.

master or slave? I think the backend is the master than the client,
whatever that is, would be the slave, right?

(I think your "should be" should all be "will", since this is up to
xl/libxl to arrange, not the user of xl, correct?)

> +
> +=back
> +
> +=item C<path=PATH>
> +
> +If C<type=FILE> then this path is the file to which the console output
> +should be logged. If C<type=SOCKET> then this is the path of the Unix domain
> +socket which should be connected to the channel.

Should the socket be preexisting then?

I think all your type definitions should reference PATH where it makes
sense. e.g. "The backend will be connected to the pty at B<PATH>" etc.

> +
> +=back
> +
>  =item B<pci=[ "PCI_SPEC_STRING", "PCI_SPEC_STRING", ... ]>
>  
>  Specifies the host PCI devices to passthrough to this guest. Each 
> B<PCI_SPEC_STRING>



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel