* Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> [2017-07-31 10:41:47 +0200]: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2017 09:46:17 +0800 > Dong Jia Shi <bjsdj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > * Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> [2017-07-28 14:58:19 +0200]: > > > > Exposing real channel paths to the guest means that the guest OS needs > > > to be able to deal with path-related things, but OTOH it has more > > > control. As I don't think we'll ever want to support a guest OS that > > > does not also run under LPAR, I'd prefer that way. > > > > > My poor English... Sorry, I don't undersatnd the last sentence... > > Probably too many negations... let me rephrase. Negations kill my brain. ;)
> > Looking at the guest OSes we want to support, it's currently Linux, > Linux, or Linux. And Linux runs fine under LPAR, as it is able to deal > with the details of channel path handling (and LPAR does not virtualize > anything of this). Nod. > > Of the other OSes, z/OS is way too insanely complex, z/VM does not make > much sense, and I don't see a case for z/TPF either. Which leaves > z/VSE, which should be able to deal with the path related stuff as well. Nod. > > So, I don't think we close any doors if we expose the path handling > complexities to the guest. > Understand now! Thanks a lot! -- Dong Jia Shi
