Xen devel - Jul 2008 - [PATCH0/2]Move xen-pm options from dom0 cmdline to start info

This patchset move xen_processor_pmbits from dom0 cmdline to start info
to avoid xen-pm being manually enforced by end user in dom0 cmdline but
without enabling them in xen.

[PATCH1/2] Xen side modification.
[PATCH2/2] Dom0 side modifcation.

Signed-off-by: Wei Gang <gang.wei@intel.com>

One further thing to be mentioned is that this patchset enlarged the
start info size. The alternative solution may be reusing the existing
flag field, but I am not sure whether it is suitable. Any comments?

Jimmy

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

On 28/7/08 07:40, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> One further thing to be mentioned is that this patchset enlarged the
> start info size. The alternative solution may be reusing the existing
> flag field, but I am not sure whether it is suitable. Any comments?
Just make it a new SIF_ flag. You can''t safely extend the structure
without
adding a flag to indicate you have done so anyway.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Can I reserve the second byte of this flag field for pm-option usage?

Jimmy

On Monday, July 28, 2008 3:21 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 28/7/08 07:40, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> One further thing to be mentioned is that this patchset enlarged the
>> start info size. The alternative solution may be reusing the existing
>> flag field, but I am not sure whether it is suitable. Any comments?
> 
> Just make it a new SIF_ flag. You can''t safely extend the
structure
without
> adding a flag to indicate you have done so anyway.
> 
>  -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Reserve yourself some space with appropriate SIF_PM_MASK (or whatever)
definition.

 -- Keir

On 28/7/08 08:40, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> Can I reserve the second byte of this flag field for pm-option usage?
> 
> Jimmy
> 
> On Monday, July 28, 2008 3:21 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>> On 28/7/08 07:40, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com>
wrote:
>> 
>>> One further thing to be mentioned is that this patchset enlarged
the
>>> start info size. The alternative solution may be reusing the
existing
>>> flag field, but I am not sure whether it is suitable. Any comments?
>> 
>> Just make it a new SIF_ flag. You can''t safely extend the
structure
> without
>> adding a flag to indicate you have done so anyway.
>> 
>>  -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Yes, that is what I mean. Updated patch will come soon.

Jimmy

On Monday, July 28, 2008 3:51 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Reserve yourself some space with appropriate SIF_PM_MASK (or whatever)
> definition.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 28/7/08 08:40, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Can I reserve the second byte of this flag field for pm-option usage?
>> 
>> Jimmy
>> 
>> On Monday, July 28, 2008 3:21 PM, Keir Fraser wrote:
>>> On 28/7/08 07:40, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@intel.com>
wrote:
>>> 
>>>> One further thing to be mentioned is that this patchset
enlarged
the
>>>> start info size. The alternative solution may be reusing the
existing
>>>> flag field, but I am not sure whether it is suitable. Any
comments?
>>> 
>>> Just make it a new SIF_ flag. You can''t safely extend the
structure
without
>>> adding a flag to indicate you have done so anyway.
>>> 
>>>  -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel