Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.6] libxl: handle read-only drives with qemu-xen

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>]

On Thu, 2015-09-17 at 12:35 +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 12:13:20PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-09-16 at 14:54 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > M A Young writes ("Re: [PATCH v2 for-4.6] libxl: handle read-only
> > > drives
> > > with qemu-xen"):
> > > > On Tue, 15 Sep 2015, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > Is ERROR_INVAL the right error to return? I get
> > > > 
> > > > libxl_dm.c: In function 'libxl__build_device_model_args_new':
> > > > libxl_dm.c:807:28: error: return makes pointer from integer without
> > > > a
> > > > cast 
> > > > [-Werror=int-conversion]
> > > >                      return ERROR_INVAL;
> > > >                             ^
> > > > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> > > 
> > > Yikes.
> > > 
> > > > when I try to build xen with the proposed patch.  NULL is returned
> > > > when
> > > > there is a problem in other places in this function.
> > > 
> > > Clearly not.
> > > 
> > > Stefano, do you want to respin ?
> > 
> > > From the other subthread it seems this is down to:
> > 
> >     commit de214e9f93de57fb5239e958372f314d29d3f7a9
> >     Author: Olaf Hering <    olaf@aepfle.de    >
> >     Date:   Mon Apr 20 13:40:31 2015 +0000
> > 
> >         libxl: pass environment to device model
> >         
> >         Prepare device-model setup functions to pass also environment
> > variables
> >         to the spawned process. This is required for upcoming changes
> > which will
> >         set DISPLAY and XAUTHORITY for SDL.
> >         
> >         Signed-off-by: Olaf Hering <    olaf@aepfle.de    >
> >         Cc: Ian Jackson <    ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com    >
> >         Cc: Stefano Stabellini <    stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com   
> >  >
> >         Cc: Ian Campbell <    ian.campbell@citrix.com    >
> >         Cc: Wei Liu <    wei.liu2@citrix.com    >
> >         Acked-by: Ian Campbell <    ian.campbell@citrix.com    >
> > 
> > which is 4.6 but not in 4.5 (where Michael was applying). So I think
> > this
> > is just an issue for backport (should return NULL instead) and not for
> > applying now.
> > 
> > So shall we go ahead with this for 4.6 or is there more
> > testing/discussion/whatever needed?
> > 
> 
> Yes, of course.

"Yes, of course, go ahead" or "Yes, of course, more
testing/discusion/whatever is needed" ?

Yes is not a helpful answer to a question which offers a choice ;-)

Ian.