Re: [Qemu-devel] One question to lowlevel/xl/xl.c and lowlevel/xc/xc.c

["Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>]

On 2015/3/24 18:40, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 18:31 +0800, Chen, Tiejun wrote:
>>> NB, the libxl ones are broken and not even compiled right now, you can
>>> ignore them.
>>
>> Looks this is still compiled now.
>
> xc is, xl is not, I am sure of that.

Indeed, you're right :)

>
>>> I don't know what the semantics of flag is, if it is per SBDF then I
>>
>> Yes, this should be a flag specific to a SBDF.
>>
>> You know, I'm working to fix RMRR completely. Based on some discussion
>> about that design ( I assume you may read that thread previously :) ),
>> now we probably need to pass a flag to introduce our policy.
>
> Unless you have a concrete requirement to expose RMRR via the Python
> bindings to libxc (i.e. you know somebody is using them) then I think
> you should not bother.

Actually my problem is that, I need to add a new parameter, 'flag', like 
this, xc_assign_device(xxx,xxx,flag). So if I don't refine xc.c, tools 
can't be compiled successfully. Or maybe you're suggesting I may isolate 
this file while building tools, right?

>
> Making RMRR work via the (C) interface to libxl used by xl and libvirt
> is sufficient for a new in tree feature.

Yeah.

Thanks
Tiejun

>
> Ian.
>>> suppose if you really wanted to expose this here then you would need to
>>> invent some syntax for doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Definitely.
>>
>> When I finish this I will send you to review technically.
>>
>> Again, really appreciate your clarification to me.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Tiejun
>
>
>