Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] Add device_model_pvdevice parameter for HVM guests

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2013-08-02 at 16:48 +0100, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > So, doesn't LIBXL_HAVE_PVDEVICE cover it? The intention is there's
> > > only ever going to be one of them.
> > 
> > PVDEVICE is a very broad term, does it mean PVNIC, PVCONSOLE, PVDISK
> > etc? How does it relate to a PVDOMAIN etc. I know we both know the
> > answer to what this is but the API should be less ambiguous.
> > 
> 
> How about VENDOR_DEVICE? That probably captures the intention (and
> makes more sense when you consider the only available value apart
> fromn 'none' is 'citrix').

vendor device sounds good to me.

Should be HVM_VENDOR_DEVICE though I think and it looks like we've
fallen into the pattern of LIBXL_HAVE_<STRUCT>_<FIELD>, so how about
LIBXL_HAVE_BUILDINFO_HVM_VENDOR_DEVICE? and u.hvm.vendor_device for the
field itself?

Ian.


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