lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [May]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 11/11] Unplug emulated disks and nics
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Stefano Stabellini writes ("[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 11/11] Unplug emulated disks and nics"):
> > On Wed, 26 May 2010, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > > Wow, this interface is perverse. It reuses the same IO port but changes
> > > function depending on the size of the IO? Again, wow.
> >
> > Yeah, before you ask, I didn't write it :)
>
> Yes, neither did I :-). However, I did document it and now I also
> maintain the "product number" registry. Did you find the interface
> spec ? Enclosed below in case not.
>
> I hereby allocate you ("pvops PV-on-HVM Linux, upstream") product
> number 3. Does the kernel have a way to distinguish between upstream
> and other versions ? Eg, there's the kernel version name suffix
> thingy if I remember rightly. Perhaps we should allocate a different
> number for "some pvops pv-on-hvm Linux with a nonempty kernel version
> name suffix". Please advise.
>
> You are welcome to use whatever you like for the "build number".
> Perhaps the best thing would a two-byte encoding of the kernel version
> number if that is possible. As the purpose is logging and
> blacklisting, it's not that critical although it's better to reuse the
> same number for excessively similar builds than to use a random scheme
> which might generate accidental clashes between unrelated versions.
>

It seems reasonable to me.
Jeremy, what do you think?



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-05-27 19:23    [W:0.191 / U:0.616 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site