From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Przywara Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] xl: add cpuid config file option Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2010 11:01:31 +0200 Message-ID: <4C7E166B.4010606@amd.com> References: <4C77B5EE.2050403@amd.com> <19581.16081.41312.69006@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <19581.16081.41312.69006@mariner.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Jackson Cc: xen-devel , Keir Fraser , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ian Jackson wrote: > Stefano Stabellini writes ("[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] xl: add cpuid config file option"): >> On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Andre Przywara wrote: >>> This first version works for me, I'd like to hear your comments. >> I like your approach. Ian, what do you think? > > I think this is a nice approach. But there didn't seem to be a patch > attached to your mail ? :-) > >> We would still need another parser for backward compatibility >> though. > > Is it possible to distinguish the old xend syntax and so have libxl > handle either ? I'm not familiar with the xend cpuid syntax. xm uses a Python list syntax, so this looks different. It is possible to tell them apart: Currently you can check the return value of xlu_cfg_get_list() to try the new approach otherwise, but this prints an ugly warning to the console. So I created a (silent) get_type function to check it before calling the respective functions. The prototype works already, I will test and polish and then send out a second version later. > >> Also I think that parse_cpuid belongs to libxl instead of xl. > > Yes. You are right, I have already moved it (in v2). Regards, Andre. -- Andre Przywara AMD-Operating System Research Center (OSRC), Dresden, Germany Tel: +49 351 448-3567-12