Xen devel - May 2012 - [PATCH v3 01/04] HVM firmware passthrough HVM defs header

Add public HVM definitions header for firmware passthrough support (including
comment describing the feature''s use). In addition this header is used
to
collect the various xenstore string values that are used in HVMLOADER.

Signed-off-by: Ross Philipson <ross.philipson@citrix.com>




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

On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:37 +0100, Ross Philipson wrote:
> 
> +/* Up to 100 OEM strings can be set in xenstore using values of the
> form
> + * below. These strings will be loaded into the SMBIOS type 11
> structure.
> + */
> +#define HVM_XS_OEM_STRINGS             "bios-strings/oem-XX" 
I think this is actually pre-existing but we have snprintf in hvmloader
now so this could probably become "bios-strings/oem-%02d" (or
whichever
format is really correct) and replace the manual munging in the code.
It''s not important right now though.

I wouldn''t say I''ve done a full review but I skimmed the rest
and it
looked good.

We''ve been feature frozen for 4.2 for a while now, are you proposing
this for 4.3 rather than asking for a freeze exception?

Ian.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Campbell
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2012 5:04 AM
> To: Ross Philipson
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 01/04] HVM firmware passthrough HVM
> defs header
> 
> On Wed, 2012-05-23 at 15:37 +0100, Ross Philipson wrote:
> >
> > +/* Up to 100 OEM strings can be set in xenstore using values of the
> > form
> > + * below. These strings will be loaded into the SMBIOS type 11
> > structure.
> > + */
> > +#define HVM_XS_OEM_STRINGS            
"bios-strings/oem-XX"
> 
> I think this is actually pre-existing but we have snprintf in hvmloader
> now so this could probably become "bios-strings/oem-%02d" (or
whichever
> format is really correct) and replace the manual munging in the code.
> It''s not important right now though.
> 
Yea I kind of saw that but I didn''t want to mix too many
"cleanup" fixes in with the new feature. I will submit a patch for
that later.
> I wouldn''t say I''ve done a full review but I skimmed the
rest and it
> looked good
> 
> We''ve been feature frozen for 4.2 for a while now, are you
proposing
> this for 4.3 rather than asking for a freeze exception?
I think 4.3 is fine. Thanks Ian.
> 
> Ian.