Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges.

["Yu, Zhang" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>]

On 2/2/2016 7:51 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 02, 2016 at 04:04:14PM +0800, Yu, Zhang wrote:
>> Thanks for your reply, Ian.
>>
>> On 2/2/2016 1:05 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Yu, Zhang writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/3] tools: introduce parameter max_wp_ram_ranges."):
>>>> On 2/2/2016 12:35 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 01.02.16 at 17:19, <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So, we need also validate this param in hvm_allow_set_param,
>>>>>> current although hvm_allow_set_param has not performed any
>>>>>> validation other parameters. We need to do this for the new
>>>>>> ones. Is this understanding correct?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another question is: as to the tool stack side, do you think
>>>>>> an error message would suffice? Shouldn't xl be terminated?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no idea what consistent behavior in such a case would
>>>>> be - I'll defer input on this to the tool stack maintainers.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you.
>>>> Wei, which one do you prefer?
>>>
>>> I think that arrangements should be made for the hypercall failure to
>>> be properly reported to the caller, and properly logged.
>>>
>>> I don't think it is desirable to duplicate the sanity check in
>>> xl/libxl/libxc.  That would simply result in there being two limits to
>>> update.
>>>
>>
>> Sorry, I do not follow. What does "being two limits to update" mean?
>>
>
> I can't speak for Ian, but my understanding is that if the code logic is
> duplicated in several places, you need to update all of them whenever
> you change the logic. But, he has expressed if this is blocker for this
> series, so I will let him clarify.

Thank you, Wei. This explanation helps. :)

B.R.
Yu