Re: [Xen-devel] [v5][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new parameters to set rdm policy

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chen, Tiejun writes ("Re: [v5][PATCH 10/16] tools: introduce some new 
parameters to set rdm policy"):
> > [Later:]
> >> As I discussed with Campbell we'd like not to expose "none" in xl level
> >> since this is equivalent to that case we don't set anything.
> >
> > I think this observation of mine applies to the libxl API level too.
> 
> Sorry I don't know what I should do at this point.

I was suggesting (in text that you have snipped) that "none" in the
API should be remamed "ignore".

> >>> This suggests that the default is "do the dangerous thing".  That
> >>> doesn't seem right.
> >>
> >> As I discussed with Campbell we'd like not to expose "none" in xl level
> >> since this is equivalent to that case we don't set anything.
> >
> > That's not really an answer to what I have said, I think.
> >
> > Why is the default the option that the documentation recommends to
> > avoid ?
> 
> I mean not all devices really needs this option and actually these 
> devices are very rare. Currently just IGD GFX needs this consideration 
> so we'd like to make "none" as a default value.

What happens if "host" is used as a default with other devices ?
AFAICT such other decices do not have any RDM so "host" would work
fine.

> >> "none" means we have a chance to work as before since not all devices
> >> own RDM. But as I said above this is same as !rdm.
> >
> > Are we expecting many existing devices, and existing setups, to break
> > if we don't make the default be to ignore the problem ?
> 
> If we don't set anything we don't hope you can ignore this existing problem.

Is "none" not "hoping the user can ignore the problem" ?

Ian.

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