Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] libxl/xl: Overhaul passthrough setting logic

From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@citrix.com>
To: George Dunlap <dunlapg@umich.edu>
Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xen.org>, Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Paul Durrant <pdurrant@gmail.com>,
	Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>,
	Anthony Perard <anthony.perard@citrix.com>,
	xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] libxl/xl: Overhaul passthrough setting logic
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 14:31:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <23968.33869.906302.573866@mariner.uk.xensource.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFLBxZapoPdDx+2rokrq0KPE_-mTgYtyE-rk4hFsvjX8g76iZQ@mail.gmail.com>

George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] libxl/xl: Overhaul passthrough setting logic"):
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 4:12 PM Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > LIBXL_PASSTHROUGH_UNKNOWN (aka "ENABLED" in an earlier uncommitted
> > version of this code) is doing double duty.  We actually need all of
> > the following to be specificable:
> >   * default ("unknown"): enable PT iff we have devices to
> >     pass through specified in the initial config file.
> 
> I realize this may be a bit late, but I find "unknown" to be a very
> strange word to use to indicate, "please choose the best option for
> me".  For USB device type I used "auto", meaning, "automatically
> choose the best option for me".  Paul didn't like "auto", which is
> fair enough, but I really don't see how "unknown" is better.
> 
> Anyway, not meaning to block, just a suggestion.

I do not have a strong opinion about this.  I would be happy with
"auto" (or "default" maybe).

None of this was in 4.12 so we are still free to change it.  Now would
be the time!

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel