Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 12:46:26 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: Ed Schouten <ed@80386.nl>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-xen@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Default Xen PVM console? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905241245120.75344@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <4A19300A.1020906@samsco.org> References: <d763ac660905232026n6542fd17k8f6c8625543be4fa@mail.gmail.com> <20090524091436.GR1271@hoeg.nl> <alpine.BSF.2.00.0905241043360.75344@fledge.watson.org> <4A19300A.1020906@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 24 May 2009, Scott Long wrote: >>> Please don't. Someone on IRC told me Xen also has some framebuffer >>> feature. Say, someone would port syscons to Xen, the naming would conflict >>> with the console device node. /dev/xc0 is good enough. I even think it >>> should have been called ttyx0, not xc0. >> >> Given that there will be increasing levels of support for "pass-through" >> hardware access in virtual machine environments and a trend in the >> direction of virtualization-friendly hardware, we shouldn't preclude the >> possibility of something a lot closer to syscons working inside of Xen in >> the future. This means we should leave the syscons device names open so >> that syscons can claim them if desired. > > HVM mode already supports "pass-through" with syscons working in it. That is > orthogonal to the discussion of supporting the native virtualization > features of Xen. Not sure I follow this comment: what I'm saying is that the Xen-specific console device should not use the same device names as syscons, so that the two can coexist in a single installation. Robert N M Watson Computer Laboratory University of Cambridge
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.0905241245120.75344>