Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx> 09.02.07 15:00 >>>
>> Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> But wouldn't that change behavior for domU-s then in an undesirable way?
>> Why? dom0 and domU should have the same behavior ...
>
> I didn't check how the old domU-related tools code behaved here, I just
> assumed the new code was based more on the old tools code than the
> hypervisor one, and hence old behavior might have been the one I had
> just seen.
Old domU builder was cut&pasted from old dom0 builder three years ago ;)
> Regardless of that, the function shouldn't return here, but rather
> continue the loop.
No, the function parses just one note, the loop is one level up.
>>> Even better, I would think, would be to split the note namespace to
>>> distinguish
>>> - general required notes
>>> - general optional notes
>>> - dom0 required notes
>> Point being? I'm not aware of any dom0-required note. And I don't
>> think splitting into required and optional is useful, especially as this
>> is arch-dependent ...
>
> To e.g. catch notes the presence of which is necessary (i.e. a newer
> hypervisor will misbehave in its absence), but ignore such that only
> provide hints in certain directions.
I don't think there are such notes. domU's are supposed to be
compatible in both directions.
> At present I also don't know of any dom0 required note, yet if any
> splitting is done, then all possible (i.e. foreseeable) groups should be
> allowed for. As you say, the list should also include an arch-specific
> range.
Shouldn't happen. Starting with 3.0.3 dom0 kernel has no hypervisor
dependencies any more, only xen kernel and tools must match version-wise.
cheers,
Gerd
--
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@xxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home