From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 11/19] tools: introduce some new
 parameters to set rdm policy
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2015 12:36:46 +0100
Message-ID: <1436269006.25646.172.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1435053450-25131-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1435053450-25131-12-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<1435234395.32500.73.camel@citrix.com> <558D0F98.7020107@intel.com>
	<1435309027.32500.142.camel@citrix.com> <558D1D13.2010208@intel.com>
	<55920844.8050800@intel.com> <1435653057.21469.4.camel@citrix.com>
	<55926378.1080701@intel.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: <55926378.1080701@intel.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: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-06-30 at 17:38 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
> > [...]
> >> "none" is the default value and it means we don't check any reserved
> >> regions and then all rdm policies would be ignored.
> >
> >
> > I'm afraid I still don't understand what the difference between
> > "rdm=none" and simply not providing an rdm argument at all are.
> >
> 
> Currently they're the same case at this point.
> 
> As I said previously, this default option is used to communicate inside 
> xl but its still possible to introduce more options in the future, or 
> think about if one day we'd like to set "host" as a default option 
> internally, we still need this explicit option to help user ignore rdm, 
> right?

Yes, that makes sense, thanks.

>  So based on your question I just think at most we can remove this 
> option description in doc file right now, so any concern to this?

That would be ok. It would also be sufficient IMHO to add a line to the
docs indicating what the default is if this option is not given.

Ian.