Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/22] xen: Provide XEN_DMOP_remote_shutdown

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 18.09.17 at 15:57, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH 01/22] xen: Provide 
> XEN_DMOP_remote_shutdown"):
>> >>> On 15.09.17 at 20:48, <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > SCHEDOP_remote_shutdown should be a DMOP so that a deprivileged qemu
>> > can do the propery tidying up.
>> > 
>> > We should remove SCHEDOP_remote_shutdown at some point.
>> 
>> Except we can't for ABI stability reasons, plus how would you
>> remote-shutdown a PV guest then?
> 
> Thanks for the review.  I have replaced that sentence in the commit
> message with this:
> 
>  We need to keep SCHEDOP_remote_shutdown for ABI stability reasons and
>  because it is needed for PV guests.

Sounds good.

>> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c
>> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/dm.c
>> > @@ -630,6 +630,14 @@ static int dm_op(const struct dmop_args *op_args)
>> >          rc = hvm_inject_msi(d, data->addr, data->data);
>> >          break;
>> >      }
>> > +    case XEN_DMOP_remote_shutdown:
>> 
>> With a blank line added above here,
> 
> Thanks.  I copied the lack of newline from between
> XEN_DMOP_inject_event and XEN_DMOP_inject_msi.

Oh, I see - the only bad example in this function.

> I will add a trivial extra patch to add that missing newline (unless
> you object).

Feel free to put my ack on it, or even merge it into the patch here.

>> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
> 
> Thanks.  In the expectation that what I say above in the commit
> message meets with your approval, I will include that R-B in my next
> posting of the series.

Yes please.

Jan


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