From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Chen, Tiejun" <tiejun.chen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 12/19] tools/libxl: passes rdm
 reservation policy
Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:23:21 +0800
Message-ID: <55934109.4020504@intel.com>
References: <1435053450-25131-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>	<1435053450-25131-13-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com>
	<CAFLBxZZe8TG-46u1qffcMGY1oF4yknbHk+WH9UXEYqu8HznmBg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAFLBxZZe8TG-46u1qffcMGY1oF4yknbHk+WH9UXEYqu8HznmBg@mail.gmail.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

>> @@ -988,6 +988,14 @@ static int do_pci_add(libxl__gc *gc, uint32_t domid, libxl_device_pci *pcidev, i
>>
>>   out:
>>       if (!libxl_is_stubdom(ctx, domid, NULL)) {
>> +        if (pcidev->rdm_reserve == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_RELAXED) {
>> +            flag = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_RELAXED;
>> +        } else if (pcidev->rdm_reserve == LIBXL_RDM_RESERVE_FLAG_STRICT) {
>> +            flag = XEN_DOMCTL_DEV_RDM_STRICT;
>> +        } else {
>> +            LIBXL__LOG_ERRNO(ctx, LIBXL__LOG_ERROR, "unknown rdm check flag.");
>> +            return ERROR_FAIL;
>> +        }
>
> Shouldn't this be in the previous patch?
>

This is trying to covert LIBXL_XXX to XEN_XXX passed this policy as a 
hypercall, so I still think this is better to live here. Instead, the 
previous patch is just defining something.

Thanks
Tiejun