[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [RFC PATCH V3 1/2] xen: pass kernel initrd to qemu [and 1 more messages]

>>> On 7/2/2014 at 11:17 PM, in message
<21428.8829.273127.394928@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson
<Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [RFC PATCH V3 1/2] xen: pass kernel initrd to  
> qemu"): 
> > On Mon, 2014-06-23 at 15:22 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote: 
> > > If we are going to do this then I think the kernel, cmdline and 
> > > ramdisk (and bootloader) parameters shoudl be moved into the main part 
> > > of the domain_build_info struct.  This will involve a compatibility 
> > > layer: temporarily (for at least one release) 
> >  
> > I don't think so -- we would need to retain it forever or at least until 
> > some sort of "API break" event. We still guarantee that applications 
> > using the 4.2 API will be supported. 
> Yes.  Sorry, I meant that the compatibility should be retained for 
> some considerable time.  So for now we should honour all the existing 
> config struct members plus also the new cmdline member which should 
> IMO be in the main part of the struct and not inside pv. 

No new member created, it's always 'cmdline' in libxl_domain_build_info.
'root' and 'extra' and new 'cmdline' are only words to config file.

Before, in libxl_domain_build_info, there are only u.pv.kernel|cmdline|ramdisk,
now since both PV and HVM support them, in theory we should move them
to main part, but considering the compatibility issue, I'm not sure which one
is better?
1. add u.hvm.kernel|cmdline|ramdisk and add hvm processing only (as in V2)
2. add u.kernel|cmdline|ramdisk (since now both PV and HVM have these) but
    keep u.pv.kernel|cmdline|ramdisk, add hvm processing, add pv processing
    u.kernel|cmdline|ramdisk too so that new users could use new APIs. (as in 

Your suggestions?

- Chunyan

> > > Why are you deprecating root= and extra= ? 
> >  
> > I suggested this. They are suckful interfaces which expose Linux 
> > specifics (e.g. the root= syntax) in our guest cfg files. cmdline is the 
> > generic equivalent. 
> I have spoken to Ian C about this and he has convinced me that I was 
> wrong to object to deprecating root= and extra=.  So please do what 
> Ian C says, not what I say.  Sorry. 
> Thanks, 
> Ian. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> Xen-devel mailing list 
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel 

Xen-devel mailing list



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.