On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 7:11 PM, jvrao <jvrao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Luiz Capitulino wrote: >> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 18:01:01 +0200 >> Mohammed Gamal <m.gamal005@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> Now that Cam is almost done with his ivshmem patches, I was thinking >>> of another idea for GSoC which is improving the pass-though >>> filesystems. >>> I've got some questions on that: >>> >>> 1- What does the community prefer to use and improve? CIFS, 9p, or >>> both? And which is better taken up for GSoC. > > Please look at our recent set of patches. > We are developing a 9P server for QEMU and client is already part of mainline Linux. > Our goal is to optimize it for virualization environment and will work as FS pass-through > mechanism between host and the guest. > > Here is the latest set of patches.. > > http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx/msg29267.html > > Please let us know if you are interested ... we can coordinate. > > Thanks, > JV > I'd be interested indeed. >>> >>> 2- With respect to CIFS. I wonder how the shares are supposed to be >>> exposed to the guest. Should the Samba server be modified to be able >>> to use unix domain sockets instead of TCP ports and then QEMU >>> communicating on these sockets. With that approach, how should the >>> guest be able to see the exposed share? And what is the problem of >>> using Samba with TCP ports? >>> >>> 3- In addition, I see the idea mentions that some Windows code needs >>> to be written to use network shares on a special interface. What's >>> that interface? And what's the nature of that Windows code? (a driver >>> a la "guest additions"?) >> >> CC'ing Aneesh as he's working on that. >> >> > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
