|
From: | Chen, Tiejun |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] One question to lowlevel/xl/xl.c and lowlevel/xc/xc.c |
Date: | Wed, 25 Mar 2015 09:18:34 +0800 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 |
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 IYes, 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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |