The HostedDependency association is only necessary when you have a direct pass-thru device, which today in our Xen CIM providers we do not (but will soon for, say, the PCI devices). So yes, these associations are certainly not *required* for the initial set of supported Xen device types we have today. As background, these associations were coded to provide a path from the virtual devices to the physical devices backing them *before* the resource pools were put in. In the case of Xen_Processor and Xen_Memory, the physical processor and memory need to be mapped into their respective pools, and the virtual devices' setting data associated with the pool instead (via AllocatedFromPool)

However, this brings up the interesting question of whether it is strictly *not* allowed to have this association when you do not have direct resource assignement? Or put another way, are we willing to say that a virtual LogicalDevice that has a HostedDependency (to a physicla device) is therefore (always) a direct pass-thru assignment?

- G

Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@novell.c om> To Sent by: xen-...@lists.xensource.com xen-cim-bounces@l cc ists.xensource.co m Subject [Xen-cim] Removing HostedDependency relationships 07/17/06 02:12 PM

I'm debating whether we need Xen_HostedProcessor, Xen_HostedMemory, and Xen_HostedNetworkPort associations. From Resource Allocation Profile:

6.3.2 Relationship between Host Resource and Virtual Resource When there is a 1-1 correspondence between the Host Resource and the Virtual Resource, the HostedDependency association can be used to indicate the correspondence.

In systems where the Virtual Resource always maps to the same Host Resource, the HostedDependency association may be used to reflect this relationship. Implementations which support scheduling across the pool of host resources transparent to the consumer would not expose the HostedDependency association as this relationship could change very frequently

HostedProcessor certain falls into this category. HostedMemory as well since there is no way to map guest's allocated memory to some physical (or logical) host memory. Not sure about HostedNetworkPort. Certainly in simple configurations it is not needed and one could argue in simple cases NetworkPort is fully synthetic. I have not played with the plethora of network configurations possible, so perhaps this association is needed in some cases (e.g. pci passthru of some network card).

Comments about removing these classes and associated code?

Jim_______________________________________________ Xen-cim mailing list Xen-...@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim