Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] Add vmware_hw to xl.cfg

[Don Slutz <dslutz@verizon.com>]

On 09/03/14 03:45, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 02.09.14 at 20:24, <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>> On 09/02/14 03:28, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 01.09.14 at 17:33, <dslutz@verizon.com> wrote:
>>>> @@ -149,8 +152,11 @@ void pci_setup(void)
>>>>                pci_writew(devfn, 0x20, 0x0000); /* No smb bus IO enable */
>>>>                pci_writew(devfn, 0xd2, 0x0000); /* No smb bus IO enable */
>>>>                pci_writew(devfn, 0x22, 0x0000);
>>>> -            pci_writew(devfn, 0x3c, 0x0009); /* Hardcoded IRQ9 */
>>>> -            pci_writew(devfn, 0x3d, 0x0001);
>>>> +            if ( !vmware_hw )
>>>> +            {
>>>> +                pci_writew(devfn, 0x3c, 0x0009); /* Hardcoded IRQ9 */
>>>> +                pci_writew(devfn, 0x3d, 0x0001);
>>>> +            }
>>> This needs an explanation (it is merely being mentioned in the
>>> description).
>> Ok, how does this comment sound:
>>
>> /*
>>    * When looking more like VMware, let the guest pick the
>>    * PCI_INTERRUPT_LINE (0x3c) and the PCI_INTERRUPT_PIN(3d)
>>    * instead of them being hardcoded.  This allows for example
>>    * lscpci in the guest to match for "PIIX4 ACPI PM" what
>>    * one gets on VMware.
>>    */
> The first sentence is just stating verbally what the code does, i.e.
> pretty pointless. The second sentence - at least to me - doesn't
> explain anything (to a large part perhaps because having lspci
> produce identical output with real VMware is rather secondary a
> goal imo).

I can agree on it being a secondary goal, and so will drop it.

I just remembered that the better statement:

Attempt to reduce windows reactivations by making the hardware
look as much like VMware's.

I am fine with delaying this to 4.6 time frame.
    -Don Slutz


> Jan
>