[Libvir] [RFC] Device attach/detach on virsh
fj1826dm at aa.jp.fujitsu.com
Fri May 11 09:42:10 UTC 2007
I understood as follows.
* There is no problem in a proposal 1 and a proposal 2
* It is better that the user can choose use of XML and use of command-option
by the situation
Therefore, I want to add both proposal 1 and proposal 2 to virsh.
There is no problem in this opinion?
And, I am going to correct about naming.
vif --> interface
vbd --> disk
In message <20070511053125.GA30832 at redhat.com>
"Re: [Libvir] [RFC] Device attach/detach on virsh"
"Daniel Veillard <veillard at redhat.com>" wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 12:21:00AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 12:50:40PM -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 10, 2007 at 06:50:53PM +0900, Masayuki Sunou wrote:
> > > To me this proposal is not okay as-is because it looks completely tied to
> > > Xen. But maybe I didn't understand, suppose I use KVM what would be the vbd
> > > or vif parameter looking like ? We need at least to change the terminology
> > > i.e. replace vif and vbd terms, but I'm afraid
> > Huh ? I didn't see anything in this proposal which was Xen-specific. The
> Hum, sorry I misunderstood, I though it was using the vif and vbd internal
> Xen numbers to adress the device. I was focusing on the delete operation,
> and wondering what was the naming used.
> > disks where being identified based on their backend path (eg /var/lib/xen/image/foo.img
> > or /dev/sda4), while network cards were being identified based on their
> > MAC address. Both of those are unique identifiers used by pretty much
> > any virt system.
> yup objection removed,
> Red Hat Virtualization group http://redhat.com/virtualization/
> Daniel Veillard | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
> veillard at redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
> http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
More information about the libvir-list