Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 00/04] HVM firmware passthrough

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 07:14:11PM -0500, Ross Philipson wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Konrad Rzeszutek Will [mailto:ketuzsezr@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 7:00 PM
> > To: Ross Philipson
> > Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 00/04] HVM firmware passthrough
> > 
> > On Jan 8, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Ross Philipson <Ross.Philipson@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > wrote:
> > 
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:xen-devel-
> > >> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ross Philipson
> > >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:55 PM
> > >> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >> Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 00/04] HVM firmware passthrough
> > >>
> > >> This patch series introduces support of loading external blocks of
> > >> firmware
> > >> into a guest. These blocks can currently contain SMBIOS and/or ACPI
> > >> firmware
> > >> information that is used by HVMLOADER to modify a guests virtual
> > >> firmware at
> > >> startup. These modules are only used by HVMLOADER and are effectively
> > >> discarded after HVMLOADER has completed.
> > > ...
> > >
> > > Is there anything else I need to do to get this patch series accepted?
> > 
> > Address the comments we had. I believe it was on making this be part of
> > "xl" guest config parsing.
> 
> Oh I thought I did. I said I would submit a separate set of patches for
> the work in xl once the earlier bits were in. Is that not an acceptable
> approach?

Somehow I missed that. I thought there were also comments on how the call
to the library should be done? As in - not introduce a new one but alter
the existing one? Or am I thinking of a different patchset?

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel