Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 14 of 32 RFC] libxl: HVM device configuration info build_info->u.hvm

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 14 of 32 RFC] libxl: HVM device 
configuration info build_info->u.hvm"):
> On Mon, 2012-01-16 at 16:29 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Eg, if we implement some kind of pvusb, aren't we just going to have
> > to move it back ?
> 
> On the one hand I agree.
> 
> On the other hand these particular two USB options are very thin shims
> over the equivalent qemu options and do not contain anything like the
> necessary richness to allow them to describe a device in the detail
> needed to be a first class thing in the IDL. I suspect that if/when we
> have PVUSB we will gain libxl_device_usb as a thing which is completely
> orthogonal to these two.
> 
> I think a similar argument applies to the audio option?

Fair enough.

...
> While we are at it -- do you have any thoughts on how per-arch options
> should be handled? I was thinking of adding the possibility in the IDL
> to tag a field with a list of architectures?

This is a red herring for this patch, I think, so:

Acked-by: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel