Re: [Xen-devel] [v5][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v5][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new 
parameters to set rdm policy"):
> On 2015/7/7 21:26, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > I was suggesting (in text that you have snipped) that "none" in the
> > API should be remamed "ignore".
> 
> So sounds you're saying these two changes,

I think so, yes.

But I think I need to go away and read your 00/ message and the design
document.  I still feel confused.  I will get back to you RSN.

> > Is "none" not "hoping the user can ignore the problem" ?
> 
> Its impossible since the hypervisor or tools can't prevent from 
> accessing RDM by a VM. So as I said early, "none" is just suitable to 
> two cases,
> 
> #1. Those devices don't own any RDM
> #2. Guest OS doesn't access RDM
> 
> Compared to other cases, these two cases are more popular in real world 
> and actual usage. So we'd like to keep "none" as a default.

Hopefully this answer will make more sense to me after I have read the
design info.

Ian.

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