Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 00/02] HVM firmware passthrough libxl support

[Ross Philipson <Ross.Philipson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Campbell
> Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 11:52 AM
> To: Ross Philipson
> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 00/02] HVM firmware passthrough libxl
> support
> 
> On Mon, 2013-01-21 at 16:43 +0000, Ross Philipson wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ian Campbell
> > > Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 4:57 AM
> > > To: Ross Philipson
> > > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 00/02] HVM firmware passthrough
> libxl
> > > support
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2013-01-18 at 21:39 +0000, Ross Philipson wrote:
> > > > This patch series is a follow-up to the earlier HVM firmware
> > > passthrough
> > > > patch set. It introduces support in libxl for specifying and
> loading
> > > the
> > > > ACPI and SMBIOS firmware blobs that are passed to libxc.
> > > >
> > > > There are 2 patches in the series:
> > > > 01 - Xen xl toolstack changes to load ACPI and SMBIOS firmware
> files.
> > > > 02 - Doc changes to the man page for xl.cfg describing the new
> params.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks, FWIW putting the code changes and corresponding docs change
> in
> > > the same patch is also fine.
> >
> > Do you want me to merge them when I resubmit?
> 
> Up to you, but I wouldn't object and it's one less patch. (I nearly
> suggested that the xc_build_hvm() change should be separate, so you
> could trade one for the other ;-))
> 

Oh ok, I could rework them so the xc_build_hvm() is a discrete patch. That
sort goes to your other comment about using a LIBXL_HAVE_* macro. The
thing that really breaks backwards compatibility is moving to the new
domain builder API in libxc. Maybe it should be more like 
LIBXL_HAVE_XC_BUILD_HVM or some such?

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