From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH for-4.6 v2 7/8] python/xc: reinstate
 original implementation of next_bdf
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:38:29 +0100
Message-ID: <1438079909.11600.122.camel@citrix.com>
References: <1438019109-31997-1-git-send-email-wei.liu2@citrix.com>
	<1438019109-31997-8-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>
Received: from mail6.bemta14.messagelabs.com ([193.109.254.103])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=644a1b3a5=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZK2HO-0001li-6u
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:38:38 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1438019109-31997-8-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>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>, Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 18:45 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> I missed the fact that next_bdf is used to parsed user supplied
> strings when reviewing. The user supplied string is a NULL-terminated
> string separated by comma. User can supply several PCI devices in that
> string. There is, however, no delimiter for different devices, hence
> we can't change the syntax of that string.
> 
> This patch reinstate the original implementation of next_bdf to
> preserve the original syntax. The last argument for xc_assign_device
> is always 0.

Specifically it returns us to exactly the state in 9b34056cb4ca~1, I
believe? Plus an extra 0 flags parameter?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
> ---
> Cc: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
> 
> Tiejun, are you actually using this python binding? I don't think we
> have in tree user.
> 
> If nobody is using it, I propose we remove this binding in next
> release.
> 
> I don't have live example of that string. My analysis is based on
> reverse-engineering of original code.

FWIW I've said several times that it is not necessary to plumb new options
such as this through the Python bindings, it is sufficient to pass in
whatever value means "do as you did before". If a user of the Python
bindings wants to then plumb in the ability to actually set the option
(i.e. there is a use case for it) then that can be done later.

Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>