[lkml]   [2012]   [Feb]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Pe: [PATCH v5 1/3] virtio-scsi: first version
On 12/02/12 21:16, James Bottomley wrote:
> Well, no-one's yet answered the question I had about why.

Just to give one example from a different angle:
In the big datacenters tape libraries are still very important, and lots
of them have a scsi attachement. virtio-blk certainly is not the right
way to handle those. Furthermore it seems even pretty hard to craft
a virtio-tape since most of those libraries have vendor specific library
controls (via sg). We would need to duplicate scsi generic (hint, hint :-)

> virtio-scsi seems to be a basic duplication of virtio-blk except that it seems to
> fix some problems virtio-blk has. Namely queue parameter discover,
> which virtio-blk doesn't seem to do. There may also be a reason to cut
> the stack lower down. Error handling is most often cited for this, but
> no-one's satisfactorily explaned why it's better to do error handling in
> the guest instead of the host.
> Could someone please explain to me why you can't simply fix virtio-blk?

I dont think that virtio-scsi will replace virtio-blk everywhere. For non-scsi
block devices, image files or logical volumes virtio-blk seems to be the right
approach, I think.

> Or would virtio-blk maintainers give a reason why they're unwilling to
> have it fixed?

I dont consider virtio-blk broken. It just doesnt cover everything.


 \ /
  Last update: 2012-02-13 08:09    [W:0.091 / U:11.092 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site