Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2][RFC] libxl: Add AHCI support for upstream qemu

[Fabio Fantoni <fabio.fantoni@xxxxxxx>]

Il 22/06/2015 12:34, George Dunlap ha scritto:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Fabio Fantoni
> <fabio.fantoni@xxxxxxx> wrote:> Il 11/06/2015 12:28, Fabio Fantoni ha
> scritto:
> > > Il 11/06/2015 12:06, Zir Blazer ha scritto:
> > > > Since I'm not a developer I may be peeking my nose a bit too far, but
> > > > based on what I know, I think that enabling AHCI by default would be a
> > > > compatibility suicide. I'm not sure about Linux and Windows Vista/7/8+, but
> > > > at least for Windows XP based VMs, it would be a terrible idea.
> > > Also use windows xp without security updates (support ended one year ago)
> > > is a "suicide".
> > >
> > > I already did this patch considering windows domU problems (I'm using
> > > mainly them for now), ahci used with option (ahci=0|1) instead replace and
> > > default is disabled.
> > > I tried it with different windows (excluding xp...abandoned)
> > > I also tried with new winpv drivers
> > > (http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/windows-pv-drivers.html)
> > >
> > > With this patch applied ahci will be not used and will be used only
> > > setting ahci=1, is it a good idea or is there problem also in this case?
> > I did many other tests in different linux hvm domUs (fedora and ubuntu) and
> > windows (7, 8.1, 10) without found problems.
> > Is this patch acceptable for xen 4.6?
> Well maybe I missed something, but:
>
> 1. The most recent version of this patch (v2) has RFC in the title;
> this is a specific request *not* to apply this patch.
>
> 2. The most recent version of this patch has the following in the
> changelog: "NOTES: This patch is a only a fast draft for testing."
> That also sounds like you're asking people not to apply the patch.
>
> 3. After reading the changelog, many people were still unclear what
> the purpose of the patch is.  You answered their questions by e-mail,
> but that information needs to be in the changelog.
>
> So you need to resend the patch 1) with RFC removed from the title;
> and 2) with a proper changelog that doesn't say "just a draft", but
> that 3) explains what the purpose of the change for people reading
> through the revision history.
>
>   -George
Thanks for reply, I did RFC initially more than 1 month ago when I was 
less certainty requiring comment and experts review.
Is RFC=request for comments or I'm wrong?
Now after many tests on many systems and keep using it for weeks without 
problem seems ok.
I'll post v3 including missing doc, libxl.h entry and improving changelog.

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