Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] Add vmware_hw to xl.cfg

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2014-09-08 at 09:47 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
> On 09/08/14 09:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2014-09-03 at 06:59 -0400, Don Slutz wrote:
> >> On 09/03/14 03:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>> On 02.09.14 at 20:24, <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>> On 09/02/14 03:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 01.09.14 at 17:33, <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>> @@ -149,8 +152,11 @@ void pci_setup(void)
> >>>>>>                 pci_writew(devfn, 0x20, 0x0000); /* No smb bus IO 
> >>>>>> enable */
> >>>>>>                 pci_writew(devfn, 0xd2, 0x0000); /* No smb bus IO 
> >>>>>> enable */
> >>>>>>                 pci_writew(devfn, 0x22, 0x0000);
> >>>>>> -            pci_writew(devfn, 0x3c, 0x0009); /* Hardcoded IRQ9 */
> >>>>>> -            pci_writew(devfn, 0x3d, 0x0001);
> >>>>>> +            if ( !vmware_hw )
> >>>>>> +            {
> >>>>>> +                pci_writew(devfn, 0x3c, 0x0009); /* Hardcoded IRQ9 */
> >>>>>> +                pci_writew(devfn, 0x3d, 0x0001);
> >>>>>> +            }
> >>>>> This needs an explanation (it is merely being mentioned in the
> >>>>> description).
> >>>> Ok, how does this comment sound:
> >>>>
> >>>> /*
> >>>>     * When looking more like VMware, let the guest pick the
> >>>>     * PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE (0x3c) and the PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN(3d)
> >>>>     * instead of them being hardcoded.  This allows for example
> >>>>     * lscpci in the guest to match for "PIIX4 ACPI PM" what
> >>>>     * one gets on VMware.
> >>>>     */
> >>> The first sentence is just stating verbally what the code does, i.e.
> >>> pretty pointless. The second sentence - at least to me - doesn't
> >>> explain anything (to a large part perhaps because having lspci
> >>> produce identical output with real VMware is rather secondary a
> >>> goal imo).
> >> I can agree on it being a secondary goal, and so will drop it.
> >>
> >> I just remembered that the better statement:
> >>
> >> Attempt to reduce windows reactivations by making the hardware
> >> look as much like VMware's.
> > On the contrary avoiding the need to reactivate Windows seems like a
> > pretty good primary reason for this change, isn't it? (or maybe I don't
> > quite get what a reactivation is and how costly it is for the admin...)
> 
> I agree, but since this is 1 of about 20 similar changes (all the rest are
> in QEMU), I am happy to defer this to 4.6 time frame.

OK makes sense.

> Windows reactivation can at some times be expensive because Microsoft says you
> have activated too many times with this license, you need a new one...
> 
> And it more effects smaller shops that have not paid the big bucks for a site
> license.
> 
> 
>      -Don Slutz
> 
> 
> > Ian.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xen-devel mailing list
> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel



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