Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxl: fix vif.ifname when used with stub device model

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2012-07-20 at 15:06 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("[PATCH] libxl: fix vif.ifname when used with stub 
> device model"):
> > libxl: fix vif.ifname when used with stub device model.
> > 
> > Currently the same libxl_device_nic is used to create both the HVM domain 
> > and
> > its stub domain's NICs. This means that if a vifname is provided both the 
> > HVM
> > domains PV NIC and the stub domains PV NIC will get the same name and the
> > DM's NIC will fail to be attached.
> > 
> > Instead launder the libxl_device_nic to add the TAP_DEVICE_SUFFIX ("-emu").
> > This is a bit of a misnomer, since the device is actually PV, but it is 
> > used to
> > "back" the emulated device in the stub domain and this naming scheme is
> > consistent with the non-stub case and is known to work e.g. with our hotplug
> > scripts.
> 
> Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> as far as it goes.
> 
> However I think this is related to Roger's:
>    [PATCH v9 12/17] libxl: set correct nic type depending on the guest
> 
> Shouldn't the type field for the nics to be given to the stub dm be
> forced to VIF ?

I should imagine so, although it's somewhat orthogonal other than both
involve frobbing the DM's NIC config.

I presume that in practice PV guests can't have an EMU path and
therefore the two NIC types collapse into the same thing, although
there's no harm being explicit I suppose.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel