On 11.09.19 17:01, Jan Beulich wrote:
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?
For plain entries (reads and eventually writes) I surely would just
forward them. In case this is possible for directories, too, I'd rather
do no caching in the kernel, so forwarding them would seem to be
appropriate (rejecting anything but reading a directory, of course).
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
