Re: [PATCH v2 03/17] libxl/arm: Add a configuration option for ARM DomU ACPI

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>]

On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:17:20PM +0800, Shannon Zhao wrote:
> On 2016年07月12日 19:33, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 10:22:39AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>> > >>Yeah, we can deprecate that field. But we need to take care to not break
> >>>> > >>users of the old field.
> >>> > >Ok, what name would you suggest?
> >> > 
> >> > I would suggest b_info->u.acpi
> >> > 
> > b_info->acpi would be more appropriate.
> > 
> > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> > index ef614be..a57823d 100644
> > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl_types.idl
> > @@ -494,11 +494,16 @@ libxl_domain_build_info = Struct("domain_build_info",[
> >      # Note that the partial device tree should avoid to use the phandle
> >      # 65000 which is reserved by the toolstack.
> >      ("device_tree",      string),
> > +    ("acpi",             libxl_defbool),
> >      ("u", KeyedUnion(None, libxl_domain_type, "type",
> >                  [("hvm", Struct(None, [("firmware",         string),
> >                                         ("bios",             libxl_bios_type),
> >                                         ("pae",              libxl_defbool),
> >                                         ("apic",             libxl_defbool),
> > +                                       # The following acpi field is
> > +                                       # deprecated. Please use the unified
> > +                                       # acpi field above which works for both
> > +                                       # x86 and ARM.
> >                                         ("acpi",             libxl_defbool),
> >                                         ("acpi_s3",          libxl_defbool),
> >                                         ("acpi_s4",          libxl_defbool),
> > 
> > 
> > And then:
> > 
> > 1. modify xl to set the new field.
> > 2. modify libxl to handle compatibility: user of the old field should
> >    continue to work.
> > 
> > I know this is a bit terse. Feel free to ask questions if you have any
> > doubt.
> I'm not sure I understand correctly. While xl is always matching libxl,
> so can we just let xl set the new field and libxl to use the new field?
> To users, they will still use the configure option "acpi".
> 

We need to distinguish between the library to control Xen (libxl) and
the user of that library (xl). Xl is just one of the possibly users of
libxl. For example, libvirt uses libxl APIs without involving xl at all,
hence my second point.

Wei.

> Thanks,
> -- 
> Shannon

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel