From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Juergen Gross Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/9] xenstore: don't start xenstore domain if already one is active Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 13:40:52 +0100 Message-ID: <56700A54.6000701@suse.com> References: <1449848861-7700-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <1449848861-7700-7-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com> <1450182201.16856.157.camel@citrix.com> <56700788.7070908@suse.com> <1450182746.16856.167.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1450182746.16856.167.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell , xen-devel@lists.xen.org, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com Cc: Daniel De Graaf List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 15/12/15 13:32, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 13:28 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 15/12/15 13:23, Ian Campbell wrote: >>> On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 16:47 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: >>>> Don't start a new xenstore domain in case one is already detected to >>>> be running. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross >>>> --- >>>> tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c >>>> b/tools/xenstore/init- >>>> xenstore-domain.c >>>> index 068887c..0ca7eed 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c >>>> +++ b/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c >>>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ static int build(xc_interface *xch) >>>> } else { >>>> ssid = SECINITSID_DOMU; >>>> } >>>> - rv = xc_domain_create(xch, ssid, handle, 0, &domid, NULL); >>>> + rv = xc_domain_create(xch, ssid, handle, >>>> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain, >>>> + &domid, NULL); >>> >>> Doesn't this bit belong earlier on in the series? >> >> I can make this patch number 3 of the series, if you like. > > Not part of the patch which adds the setting? Hmm, do you really think so? Isn't the normal setup of a patch series to split adding a new feature and using it to different patches? > NB, I think you mean just this hunk rather than reordering this patch? > That's what I was trying to get at at least. Why? With specifying the xenstore flag I can make use of it being set for a xenstore domain in the same patch. I can split it, if you really like, but this split would be less obvious than the one between this patch and patch 2, IMO. Juergen