On Fri, 2019-01-18 at 11:44 +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > For QEMU the <filesystem> element currently implies the 9p filesystem > passthrough impl. > > We already have a need to reuse it for USB-MTP filesystem sharing, > and quite soon we'll have to support virtio-fs too. The virtio-fs > module is essentially fuse-over-virtio IIUC. In fact I wonder why > we're not just calling that device virtio-fuse to make it explicit ! > > Anyway the point is that model=virtio-transitional is potentially > ambiguous, depending on how we intend to deal with this. > > I was at first thinking of model="virtio-9p|virtio-fs|usb-mtp" > to deal with the existing issue, but you're proposing using model > already. > > I'm a little mixed about how to best dovetail with the transitional > stuff. We could use 'model' stuff but expand it: > > virtio-9p > virtio-9p-transitional > virtio-9p-non-transitional > virtio-fs > usb-mtp > > IIUC, we don't need a -transitional/-non-transitional variant for > virtio-fs since it will be a modern device only - same as with > virtio-gpu. > > Or we could do things different and invert something like a 'protocol' > concept for the filesystem. > > <filesystem type='mount'> > <target dir="foo" protocol="9p|mtp|fuse"/> > </filesystem> Welp, I wish I'd re-read this message before reviewing the previous patch :) It looks to me like 'model' as used by Cole and and 'protocol' as suggested by you are basically complementary, so having both of them seems pretty reasonable from a quick look. -- Andrea Bolognani / Red Hat / Virtualization -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
