Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 08/18] PVH xen: tools changes to create PVH domain

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2013-07-30 at 18:06 -0700, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:58:08 +0100
> Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, 2013-05-24 at 18:25 -0700, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> ... 
> > > +    }
> > > +
> > >      dom = xc_dom_allocate(ctx->xch, state->pv_cmdline,
> > > info->u.pv.features); if (!dom) {
> > >          LOGE(ERROR, "xc_dom_allocate failed");
> > > @@ -370,6 +384,7 @@ int libxl__build_pv(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t
> > > domid, }
> > >  
> > >      dom->flags = flags;
> > > +    dom->pvh_enabled = is_pvh;
> > 
> > Not part of the flags?
> 
> I'd have liked to use the flags, but with all due respect, when a field 
> is named "flags", a search for which yields 800 hits, and there is no
> comment, and the type is ulong, it is impossible for someone to
> understand and reverse engineer it? Can you tell me if it's a bit field,
> enum of some sort, or even where it's used? I can't grep/cscope such
> generic field name...

Well, obviously you grep/cscope for the type of the containing struct
and then look within it, it's hardly rocket science.

As it happens these flags correspond exactly to the struct start_info
flags which are a bunch of SIF_* things, so in this case putting pvh
there isn't appropriate.

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel