From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH OSSTEST v3 10/11] ts-xen-install: install
 Xen with XSM support if requested
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:15:13 +0000
Message-ID: <1418217313.3505.41.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1413323416-21778-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1413323416-21778-11-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1413323416-21778-11-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2014-10-14 at 22:50 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> ---
>  ts-xen-install |    4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ts-xen-install b/ts-xen-install
> index 4d34d1f..2e2fcbc 100755
> --- a/ts-xen-install
> +++ b/ts-xen-install
> @@ -46,6 +46,8 @@ if (@ARGV and $ARGV[0] eq '--check') {
>  
>  our $ho;
>  
> +my $enable_xsm = $r{enable_xsm} =~ m/y/ ? 1 : 0;
> +
>  my %distpath;
>  
>  sub packages () {
> @@ -171,7 +173,7 @@ sub setupboot () {
>      }
>  
>      my $want_kernver = get_runvar('kernel_ver',$r{'kernbuildjob'});
> -    debian_boot_setup($ho, $want_kernver, $xenhopt, \%distpath, \@hooks);
> +    debian_boot_setup($ho, $want_kernver, $enable_xsm, $xenhopt, \%distpath, \@hooks);

Doesn't this have to be in the same patch as the one which adds the new
parameter in the function declaration? Or at least that patch needs to
hardcode a false until now.

(not sure we care much about bisectability in osstest, Ian?)