Re: behavioral change due to new elf code

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>]

>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de> 09.02.07 15:00 >>>
>Jan Beulich wrote:
>> But wouldn't that change behavior for domU-s then in an undesirable way?
>
>Why?  dom0 and domU should have the same behavior ...

I didn't check how the old domU-related tools code behaved here, I just
assumed the new code was based more on the old tools code than the
hypervisor one, and hence old behavior might have been the one I had
just seen.
Regardless of that, the function shouldn't return here, but rather
continue the loop.

>> Even better, I would think, would be to split the note namespace to
>> distinguish
>> - general required notes
>> - general optional notes
>> - dom0 required notes
>
>Point being?  I'm not aware of any dom0-required note.  And I don't
>think splitting into required and optional is useful, especially as this
>is arch-dependent ...

To e.g. catch notes the presence of which is necessary (i.e. a newer
hypervisor will misbehave in its absence), but ignore such that only
provide hints in certain directions.

At present I also don't know of any dom0 required note, yet if any
splitting is done, then all possible (i.e. foreseeable) groups should be
allowed for. As you say, the list should also include an arch-specific
range.

Jan