[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device
From: |
Ian Campbell |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device |
Date: |
Tue, 2 Jul 2013 10:56:47 +0100 |
On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 10:14 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Campbell
> > Sent: 02 July 2013 09:57
> > To: Paul Durrant
> > Cc: address@hidden; address@hidden
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device
> >
> > On Tue, 2013-07-02 at 09:39 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > This patch introduces a new PCI device which will act as the binding point
> > > for Citrix branded PV drivers for Xen.
> > > The intention is that Citrix Windows PV drivers will be available on
> > > Windows
> > > Update and thus using the existing Xen platform PCI device as an anchor
> > > point is not desirable as that device has been ubiquitous in HVM guests
> > > for
> > > a long time and thus existing HVM guests running Windows would start
> > > automatically downloading drivers from Windows Update when this may
> > not be
> > > desired by either the host or guest admin.
> >
> > What about
> > <address@hidden>
> > ?
> >
>
> I had actually coded up a solution based on the existing Xen platform
> device, by having it synthesize a device ID based on the Xen version
> to which we could then host the xenbus driver, to allow us to deploy
> multiple versions of xenbus should compatibility (with things such as
> the shared info interface) become an issue. The co-installer for this
> driver could also spot existing PV driver installations and make sure
> they don't get trashed.
I think only this last bit of functionality is critical here, and it
allows us to avoid having to carry multiple platform devices in
upstream, doesn't it?
> This idea was rejected by Citrix product teams though, because we
> would not be able to prevent any Windows guest without some known PV
> drivers from downloading our new driver from Windows Update and this
> was seen as undesirable.
Well, if your product requirements are at odds with doing the right
thing upstream then I think it would be best for you to just carry
patches to make XS behave how you want. I hope we can find a suitable
compromise though.
Ian.
Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Ian Campbell, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Paul Durrant, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device,
Ian Campbell <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Tim Deegan, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Ian Campbell, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Paul Durrant, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Ian Campbell, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Pasi Kärkkäinen, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Tim Deegan, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Ian Campbell, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Paul Durrant, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Ian Campbell, 2013/07/02
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Citrix PV Bus device, Paul Durrant, 2013/07/02