Re: [Xen-devel] [DRAFT 1] XenSock protocol design document

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 8 Jul 2016, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 08/07/16 17:52, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > 
> >> c) My belief that most of the advantages of this proposal can be
> >> achieved with smarts in the backend.
> > 
> > By backend do you mean netfront/netback? If so, I have already pointed
> > out why that is not the case in previous emails as well as in this
> > design document.
> > 
> > If you remain unconvinced of the usefulness of this work, that's OK, we
> > can agree to disagree. Many people work on things I don't believe
> > particularly useful myself. I am not asking you to spend any time on
> > this if you don't believe it serves a purpose. But please let the rest
> > of the community work constructively together.
> 
> If you're only going to implement userspace frontends and backends, then
> sure I can step out of this discussion.  However, your initial prototype
> drivers suggest you're aiming at in-kernel drivers.
 
We are discussing the protocol here. There could be only userspace
drivers. Reservations about Linux drivers should be expressed elsewhere.

Even if there were kernel drivers, don't worry about maintenance. I
wouldn't ask you to carry the burden. If/when they'll be ready to be
merged, I would be quite happy to take it on (similarly to what happened
with Juergen and his good work on the PV SCSI frontend and backend). Due
to their nature, they'll be quite self-contained. And fortunately we
have many other Linux maintainers and Linux experts in the Xen
community, who can provide constructive feedback. We are an healthy
community after all and we can rely on each others.

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