Re: [Xen-devel] [DRAFT C] PVH CPU hotplug design document

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 23.01.17 at 17:42, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 09:30:30AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 17.01.17 at 18:14, <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > This can be solved by using a different ACPI name in order to describe 
>> > vCPUs in
>> > the ACPI namespace. Most hardware vendors tend to use CPU or PR prefixes 
>> > for
>> > the processor objects, so using a 'VP' (ie: Virtual Processor) prefix 
>> > should
>> > prevent clashes.
>> 
>> I continue to think that this is insufficient, without seeing a nice
>> clean way to solve the issue properly.
> 
> But in this document the namespace path for processor objects will be
> _SB.XEN0.VPXX, which should prevent any namespace clashes. Maybe I should have
> updated the wording here, every Xen-related ACPI bit will be inside the
> _SB.XEN0 namespace.

Well, if we want to introduce our own parent name space, why the
special naming convention then? Any name not colliding with other
things in _SB.XEN0 should do then, so the only remaining risk would
then be that the firmware also has _SB.XEN0.

Jan


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