On (Fri) Sep 11 2009 [17:00:10], Alan Cox wrote:
> > The interface presented to guest userspace is of a simple char
> > device, so it can be used like this:
> >
> > fd = open("/dev/vcon2", O_RDWR);
> > ret = read(fd, buf, 100);
> > ret = write(fd, string, strlen(string));
> >
> > Each port is to be assigned a unique function, for example, the
> > first 4 ports may be reserved for libvirt usage, the next 4 for
> > generic streaming data and so on. This port-function mapping
> > isn't finalised yet.
>
> Unless I am missing something this looks completely bonkers
>
> Every time we have a table of numbers for functionality it ends in
> tears. We have to keep tables up to date and managed, we have to
> administer the magical number to name space.
Right; there was some discussion about this. A few alternatives were
suggested like
- udev scripts to create symlinks from ports to function, like:
/dev/vcon3 -> /dev/virtio-console/clipboard
- Some fqdn-like hierarchy, like
/dev/virtio-console/com/redhat/clipboard
which again can be created by udev scripts
> Anyway - you don't seem to need a fixed number you can use dynamic
> allocation and udev.
>
> There are at least two better ways to do this
>
> - Using sysfs nodes so you have a proper heirarchy of names/functions
> - Using a simple file system which provides a heirarchy of nodes whose
> enumeration and access is backed by calls to whatever happyvisor you
> are using.
>
> it then self enumerates, self populates, doesn't need anyone to keep
> updating magic tables of guest code and expands cleanly - yes ?
Agreed. I'd prefer udev scripts doing it vs doing it in the code as it
keeps everything simple and the policy isn't laid out in the kernel
module. Is that fine?
Amit
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
