Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1] core: mount xenfs, ignore proc-xen.mount (#6442, #6662)

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> 12/01/17 1:30 PM >>>
>On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:23:16AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 01.12.17 at 13:15, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 05:11:45AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> >>> On 01.12.17 at 12:48, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > Suppose at one point we split hardware domain and control domain, which
>> >> > one will you call Dom0? Which one will get the flag?
>> >> 
>> >> There can only be one hardware domain, which will continue to
>> >> be the one getting XENFEAT_dom0. There could be any number
>> >> of control domains (perhaps with some coordination between
>> >> them).
>> > 
>> > Right. So XENFEAT_dom0 is not really what Olaf needs. 
>> 
>> Sigh. What does "has access to all the hardware" translate to
>> for you?
>
>That would mean hardware domain.
>
>But Olaf needs to know if some of the services like xenconsoled or
>xenstored should be started, and if some of the special file systems
>should be mounted, right? Those aren't tied to hardware in anyway. In my
>view that's the responsibility of the toolstack control domain.
>
>Can you point me to the start of your discussion with Olaf so that I can
>check what the disagreement between you and Olaf is about?

The start of the discussion is the root of this thread. Olaf somewhere in
the middle pointed to another discussion which you appear to have been
involved in.

I'm also not sure there's actual disagreement here - I was merely pointing
out that strictly following what was written in the description of the patch
there may not be a need to consult /proc/xen, and hence no need to
mount it early.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel