Hi Shannon,
On 12/07/16 04:40, Shannon Zhao wrote:
On 2016/7/7 23:30, Wei Liu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:40:32AM +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
On 23/06/16 15:34, Shannon Zhao wrote:
On 2016年06月23日 21:39, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2016, Shannon Zhao wrote:
From: Shannon Zhao <shannon.z...@linaro.org>
+ if (xlu_cfg_get_defbool(config, "acpi", &b_info->arch_arm.acpi, 0)) {
+ libxl_defbool_set(&b_info->arch_arm.acpi, 0);
+ }
We cannot share the existing code to parse the acpi paramter because
that is saved in b_info->u.hvm.acpi, right?
Yes.
It's a pity. I wonder if we
could refactor the existing code so that we can actually share the acpi
parameter between x86 and arm.
I have no idea about this since I'm not familiar with this. But is there
any downsides of current way? Because for x86, it will use
b_info->u.hvm.acpi and for ARM it will use b_info->arch_arm.acpi. I
think they don't conflict even though we store it at two places.
Yes, there is a downside. Toolstack, such as libvirt, would need to have
separate code for x86 and ARM in order to enable/disable ACPI.
I would introduce a new generic acpi parameters, deprecate
b_info->u.hvm.acpi. Ian, Stefano, Wei, any opinions?
Yeah, we can deprecate that field. But we need to take care to not break
users of the old field.
Ok, what name would you suggest?
I would suggest b_info->u.acpi
Regards,
--
Julien Grall
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
