On 12/02/12 21:16, James Bottomley wrote: > Well, no-one's yet answered the question I had about why. Just to give one example from a different angle: In the big datacenters tape libraries are still very important, and lots of them have a scsi attachement. virtio-blk certainly is not the right way to handle those. Furthermore it seems even pretty hard to craft a virtio-tape since most of those libraries have vendor specific library controls (via sg). We would need to duplicate scsi generic (hint, hint :-) > virtio-scsi seems to be a basic duplication of virtio-blk except that it seems to > fix some problems virtio-blk has. Namely queue parameter discover, > which virtio-blk doesn't seem to do. There may also be a reason to cut > the stack lower down. Error handling is most often cited for this, but > no-one's satisfactorily explaned why it's better to do error handling in > the guest instead of the host. > > Could someone please explain to me why you can't simply fix virtio-blk? I dont think that virtio-scsi will replace virtio-blk everywhere. For non-scsi block devices, image files or logical volumes virtio-blk seems to be the right approach, I think. > Or would virtio-blk maintainers give a reason why they're unwilling to > have it fixed? I dont consider virtio-blk broken. It just doesnt cover everything. Christian -- 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
