Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH OSSTEST v4 2/2] Stubdom test case

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 01:05:50PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH OSSTEST v3] Stubdom test case"):
> > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 12:10:41PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > If you do that then you end up with
> > >    $stubdom = guest_var_boolean($gho,'stubdom')
> > > (assuming guest_var_boolean returns undef for unset runvar if no
> > > default supplied).
> 
> Thanks, you did this.
> 
> > > That short enough that you can just write it explicitly in
> > > more_prepareguest_hvm (which has access to $gho) and you therefore
> > > don't need to introduce a new Stubdom entry in xopts.
> 
> But:
> 
> Wei Liu writes ("[PATCH OSSTEST v4 2/2] Stubdom test case"):
> > Currently only QEMU traditional supports stubdom and we want to
> > eventually do away with non-XSM test cases, so we only create
> ...
> > +    my $stubdom = $xopts{Stubdom};
> ...
> > +    my $stubdom = guest_var_boolean($gho, 'stubdom');
> > +
> >      more_prepareguest_hvm($ho,$gho, $ram_mb, $disk_mb,
> >                            OnReboot => 'preserve',
> >                            Bios => $r{bios},
> > +                          Stubdom => $stubdom,
> 
> Did you disagree with my suggestion to avoid introducing an xopt
> Stubdom ?  Personally I don't think this plumbing adds anything over
> writing the runvar reference directly, but perhaps you (or Ian C)
> disagree.
> 

Sorry, I missed that part. I'm fine with your suggestion. I will respin.

Wei.

> Apart from that this patch is fine.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian.

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