Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] Add vmware_hw to xl.cfg

[Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/08/14 09:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 06:59 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
> > On 09/03/14 03:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > On 02.09.14 at 20:24, <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On 09/02/14 03:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 01.09.14 at 17:33, <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > @@ -149,8 +152,11 @@ void pci_setup(void)
> > > > > >                 pci_writew(devfn, 0x20, 0x0000); /* No smb bus IO enable */
> > > > > >                 pci_writew(devfn, 0xd2, 0x0000); /* No smb bus IO enable */
> > > > > >                 pci_writew(devfn, 0x22, 0x0000);
> > > > > > -            pci_writew(devfn, 0x3c, 0x0009); /* Hardcoded IRQ9 */
> > > > > > -            pci_writew(devfn, 0x3d, 0x0001);
> > > > > > +            if ( !vmware_hw )
> > > > > > +            {
> > > > > > +                pci_writew(devfn, 0x3c, 0x0009); /* Hardcoded IRQ9 */
> > > > > > +                pci_writew(devfn, 0x3d, 0x0001);
> > > > > > +            }
> > > > > This needs an explanation (it is merely being mentioned in the
> > > > > description).
> > > > Ok, how does this comment sound:
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > >     * When looking more like VMware, let the guest pick the
> > > >     * PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE (0x3c) and the PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN(3d)
> > > >     * instead of them being hardcoded.  This allows for example
> > > >     * lscpci in the guest to match for "PIIX4 ACPI PM" what
> > > >     * one gets on VMware.
> > > >     */
> > > The first sentence is just stating verbally what the code does, i.e.
> > > pretty pointless. The second sentence - at least to me - doesn't
> > > explain anything (to a large part perhaps because having lspci
> > > produce identical output with real VMware is rather secondary a
> > > goal imo).
> > I can agree on it being a secondary goal, and so will drop it.
> >
> > I just remembered that the better statement:
> >
> > Attempt to reduce windows reactivations by making the hardware
> > look as much like VMware's.
> On the contrary avoiding the need to reactivate Windows seems like a
> pretty good primary reason for this change, isn't it? (or maybe I don't
> quite get what a reactivation is and how costly it is for the admin...)
I agree, but since this is 1 of about 20 similar changes (all the rest are
in QEMU), I am happy to defer this to 4.6 time frame.

Windows reactivation can at some times be expensive because Microsoft says you
have activated too many times with this license, you need a new one...

And it more effects smaller shops that have not paid the big bucks for a site
license.


    -Don Slutz


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

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