From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:58:06 -0600
From: "Ronald G. Minnich" <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] 8c question
In-Reply-To: <a4e6962a050711122327252f90@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0507111355220.14780@enigma.lanl.gov>
References: <eaf7ffeb94093a1af9c5b04c2c0aa4f9@terzarima.net>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0507101853241.12286@enigma.lanl.gov>
	<a4e6962a050711122327252f90@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Cc: 
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 63fb77be-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025



On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Eric Van Hensbergen wrote:

> Now that he has recover more or less working, Gorka is going to take a
> look at this.  Burning a Xen CD for him right now.  A question for you
> Ron - would it be bad to prototype on the more stable Xen 2.0?  I'd hate
> to waste time if too much of the device channel interface is chaning for
> 3.0...

newsham can tell us more. But my inclination, given the spin rate of 3.0, 
is to go for 2.0 for proof-of-concept. After all, to get it working on 
3.0, you have to first finish the port of plan 9 to 3.0 ...


it's be nice to have a '#X' or something so:

bind '#X' /dev/xen
and then see /dev/xen/net0, /dev/xen/disk0, and so on, and then

disk/fdisk /dev/xen/disk0/data > /dev/xen/disk0/ctl

bind /dev/xen/net0 /net

and so on.

or maybe the bind would result in stuff like 
/dev/xennet0
/dev/xensd00

etc.

?

Does this sound right or I am way off base here. 

ron