On 11.09.2019 15:01, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 11.09.19 13:54, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 11.09.2019 13:29, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> On 11.09.19 13:17, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>>> Second, is xenfs really the best name here? It is ambiguous with the >>>> still-essential (even though it really needs to disappear) Linux >>>> filesystem by the name xenfs. >>> >>> Yes, I'm aware of that ambiguity. I'm absolutely in favor of finding a >>> better name. >>> >>> Maybe xensysfs? >> >> Or just xensys (albeit that's likely getting ambiguous)? I'm >> not fully convinced calling this a file system is a good idea. >> Windows' name-value pair store is called registry, for >> example, despite it also resembling a file system to a certain >> degree. > > "Registry" doesn't seem correct regarding the potential dynamically > generated entries.
I also didn't mean to suggest "registry" as a name. The Windows registry does, however (and despite its name), contain dynamic data afaik (certain performance counters for example). > And with the idea to "mount" it in the dom0 kernel's sysfs I think > xensysfs (or xenhypfs?) seems appropriate. Well, such "mounting" is going to be indirect, I would assume? I.e. not directly forward filesystem like requests as such to Xen? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
