On 18/09/18 12:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 18.09.18 at 08:02, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >> Instead of using binary hypervisor interfaces for new parameters of >> domains or cpupools this patch series adds support for generic text >> based parameter parsing. >> >> Parameters are defined via new macros similar to those of boot >> parameters. Parsing of parameter strings is done via the already >> existing boot parameter parsing function which is extended a little >> bit. >> >> Parameter settings can either be specified in configuration files of >> domains or cpupools, or they can be set via new xl sub-commands. > > Without having looked at any of the patches yet (not even their > descriptions) I'm still wondering what the benefit of textual parameters > really is: Just like "binary" ones, they become part of the public > interface, and hence subsequently can't be changed any more or > less than the ones we currently have (in particular, anything valid in > a guest config file will imo need to remain to be valid and meaningful > down the road).
So lets look what would be needed for adding something like the per-domain xpti parameter using binary interfaces: 1 an extension of some domctl interface, maybe bumping of the domctl interface version 2 adding the logic to domctl handling 3 adding libxc support 4 adding libxl support 5 adding a new xl sub-command 6 adding domain config support 7 adding documentation With my approach only 2 (in a modified form, parameter handling instead of domctl, but comparable in the needed effort) and 7 are needed. So once the framework is in place it is _much_ easier to add new features. Juergen _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
