>>> On 23.08.17 at 14:42, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
> On 23/08/17 11:38, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 23.08.17 at 11:30, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
>>> On 22/08/17 13:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> On 16.08.17 at 14:52, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> @@ -176,7 +210,8 @@ int __init parse_bool(const char *s)
>>>>> !strcmp("on", s) ||
>>>>> !strcmp("true", s) ||
>>>>> !strcmp("enable", s) ||
>>>>> - !strcmp("1", s) )
>>>>> + !strcmp("1", s) ||
>>>>> + !*s )
>>>>> return 1;
>>>>
>>>> Careful with this: Taking the "iommu=" example that I've commented
>>>> on in the other patch already, much depends on what you mean to
>>>> do about the problem there: "iommu=,..." should not end up
>>>> meaning "iommu=on,...".
>>>
>>> It won't. *s will be ',' in this case.
>>
>> Right, but as said - much depends on what you mean to do about
>> the problem in the earlier patch.
>
> So I just hit this. And looking more thoroughly into it: today it in
> fact has exactly this meaning. iommu_enable is "1" per default. So
> specifying "iommu=,..." won't change this and has the same semantics
> as "iommu=on,...".
But that's not the interesting case. Are you saying that
"iommu=off iommu=,..." enables the IOMMU today? It doesn't
look to me as if it would.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
