Re: [Xen-devel] Upstream QEMU based stubdom and rump kernel

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-03-18 at 12:24 +0100, Martin Lucina wrote:
> > ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx said:
> > > On Tue, 2015-03-17 at 15:27 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > > > This looks most interesting as it implies we can easily pipe a console
> > > > to it.
> > > 
> > > BTW, rather than rawe consoles we should probably consider using the
> > > channel extension: http://xenbits.xen.org/docs/unstable/misc/channel.txt
> > 
> > What would be the advantage/rationale for using channels rather than vchan?
> > (See my other reply to this thread)
> 
> Not much really.
> 
> About the only relevant difference between vchan and channels(/consoles)
> is that there is an existing backend running on most xen systems
> (xenconsoled) which can be leveraged in some cases for channels, whereas
> vchan would need a specific backend writing for each case.
> 
> Apart from that implementation convenience vchan is probably going to be
> better in terms of proper integration for the other end.
> 
> But iff the decision goes the way of consoles then using channels in
> preference to raw consoles makes sense.

I think that for simplicity's sake and to limit dependencies on the
system, using consoles for low bandwidth channels, such as QMP, is
preferable.

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