Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] libxl/xl: Overhaul passthrough setting logic

[Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 05:09:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Durrant writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] libxl/xl: 
> Overhaul passthrough setting logic"):
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 17:34, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jürgen Groß writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] 
> > > libxl/xl: Overhaul passthrough setting logic"):
> > > > On 11.10.19 15:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > > I do not have a strong opinion about this.  I would be happy with
> > > > > "auto" (or "default" maybe).
> > > >
> > > > "unspecified"?
> > >
> > > That is IMO the best suggestion so far so I will go with that in my
> > > v3.
> > 
> > Seems odd to specify a parameter with a value of 'unspecified' ;-)
> 
> I have tried to infer +1/-1/0 numbers from the mail thread.  I have
> also looked at libxl_types.idl to see how many times we are using
> what name to represent roughly this concept:
> 
>  Bikeshed colour  Paul Juergen George Ian Anthony Wei #already
> 
>  unknown           ?      ?     -1    +2    ?     ?    17
>  default           ?      ?     ?      0    ?     ?     2
>  auto              -1     ?     +1     0    ?     ?     1
>  unspecified       -1     +1    ?      0    ?     ?     0
> 
>                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>                                       libxl maintainers

+1 to "unknown". I prefer consistency.

0 to all others.


> 
> On this basis IMO clearly this should go back to "unknown".
> I will do that in a respin (or maybe on commit) but right now I think
> I am still awaiting a review for this patch.
> 

I think a respin is required -- in one of the mails your said you would
need to put some logic into arch-specific function.

Wei.

> Thanks,
> Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel