On Tue, Jul 28, 2015 at 11:38:29AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Mon, 2015-07-27 at 18:45 +0100, Wei Liu wrote: > > I missed the fact that next_bdf is used to parsed user supplied > > strings when reviewing. The user supplied string is a NULL-terminated > > string separated by comma. User can supply several PCI devices in that > > string. There is, however, no delimiter for different devices, hence > > we can't change the syntax of that string. > > > > This patch reinstate the original implementation of next_bdf to > > preserve the original syntax. The last argument for xc_assign_device > > is always 0. > > Specifically it returns us to exactly the state in 9b34056cb4ca~1, I > believe? Plus an extra 0 flags parameter? >
Yes to both questions. > > > > Signed-off-by: Wei Liu <wei.l...@citrix.com> > > --- > > Cc: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.c...@intel.com> > > > > Tiejun, are you actually using this python binding? I don't think we > > have in tree user. > > > > If nobody is using it, I propose we remove this binding in next > > release. > > > > I don't have live example of that string. My analysis is based on > > reverse-engineering of original code. > > FWIW I've said several times that it is not necessary to plumb new options > such as this through the Python bindings, it is sufficient to pass in > whatever value means "do as you did before". If a user of the Python > bindings wants to then plumb in the ability to actually set the option > (i.e. there is a use case for it) then that can be done later. > > Acked-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
