Re: [Xen-devel] One question to lowlevel/xl/xl.c and lowlevel/xc/xc.c

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 2015/3/24 18:40, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 18:31 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> > > NB, the libxl ones are broken and not even compiled right now, you can
> > > ignore them.
> > Looks this is still compiled now.
> xc is, xl is not, I am sure of that.
Indeed, you're right :)

> > > I don't know what the semantics of flag is, if it is per SBDF then I
> > Yes, this should be a flag specific to a SBDF.
> >
> > You know, I'm working to fix RMRR completely. Based on some discussion
> > about that design ( I assume you may read that thread previously :) ),
> > now we probably need to pass a flag to introduce our policy.
> Unless you have a concrete requirement to expose RMRR via the Python
> bindings to libxc (i.e. you know somebody is using them) then I think
> you should not bother.
Actually my problem is that, I need to add a new parameter, 'flag', like 
this, xc_assign_device(xxx,xxx,flag). So if I don't refine xc.c, tools 
can't be compiled successfully. Or maybe you're suggesting I may isolate 
this file while building tools, right?
> Making RMRR work via the (C) interface to libxl used by xl and libvirt
> is sufficient for a new in tree feature.
Yeah.

Thanks
Tiejun

> Ian.
> > > suppose if you really wanted to expose this here then you would need to
> > > invent some syntax for doing so.
> > Definitely.
> >
> > When I finish this I will send you to review technically.
> >
> > Again, really appreciate your clarification to me.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tiejun
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel