On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:30:38PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > As you know, this ID has been in use for a long time now. While the > > > hypervisor > > > does not interpret the guest ID that is registered, I am not sure what > > dependencies > > > there might be on this value. > > > > Could you please go find out the answer to this? > > That is easier said than done. I have sent emails out asking this very > question and I have > not received a definitive answer yet. Not knowing if and when I can get a > definitive > answer here, I chose the least risky approach in my patch.
What happens if you test with different values? > > If, as you originally stated, there is a range of values we can use, > > then we should probably use another one, right? > > On the Windows side this ID namespace is managed well. It is? How is this managed? What does this tell the hypervisor? What changes with the different values? > However on the Linux side, we have really had this current ID in use > for almost five years now. I am not aware of any pool of IDs available > for Linux usage except that Linux IDs be distinct from the guest IDs > in use by MSFT operating systems. If I were to change the guest ID, I > would probably want to comply with the MSFT guidance on constructing > these IDs (although not all fields may be relevant for Linux). What are those rules? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
