Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Remove hardcoded xen-platform device initialization (v4)

[Paul Durrant]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: 18 June 2013 14:02
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Laszlo Ersek; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Remove hardcoded xen-platform
> device initialization (v4)
> 
> On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:57:54PM +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Michael S. Tsirkin [mailto:address@hidden
> > > Sent: 18 June 2013 13:52
> > > To: Laszlo Ersek
> > > Cc: Paul Durrant; address@hidden
> > > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] Remove hardcoded xen-platform
> > > device initialization (v4)
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 02:37:58PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> > > > Hi Paul,
> > > >
> > > > (xen-devel snipped)
> > > >
> > > > On 06/18/13 13:16, Paul Durrant wrote:
> > > > > Because of concerns over backwards compatibility and a suggestion
> that
> > > > > xenfv should be retired in favour of using the pc machine type I have
> re-
> > > > > worked my original patch into 2 patches:
> > > > >
> > > > > [PATCH 1/2] Allow use of pc machine type (accel=xen) for Xen HVM
> > > > > [PATCH 2/2] Move hardcoded initialization of xen-platform device.
> > > > >
> > > > > Application of both these patches allows alternative pc machine types
> to
> > > be
> > > > > used with the accel=xen option, but preserves the hardcoded
> creation of
> > > > > the xen-platform device only for machine type xenfv.
> > > > >
> > > > > v3:
> > > > > - Add test for xen_enabled() that went missing in v2
> > > > >
> > > > > v4:
> > > > > - Remove erroneous whitespace hunk
> > > > > - Replace hw_error() with fprintf()+exit(1)
> > > > > - Add braces to single-line if
> > > >
> > > > can you please offer an opinion in the
> > > >
> > > >   [PATCH 1/2] pvpanic: initialization cleanup
> > > >   http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.emulators.qemu/216940
> > > >
> > > > thread?
> > > >
> > > > >From where I stand (which is "quite afar" :)) this series of yours 
> > > > >seems
> > > > somewhat related to my doubt there.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks!
> > > > Laszlo
> > >
> > > OK will make it skip fwcfg as we did earlier.
> > > Thanks for the review.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I think the assert(fw_cfg) would be problematic in the xen case where,
> up until my patch, machine types was necessarily xenfv.
> >
> >   Paul
> 
> Do you guys actually need the pvpanic device?

I don't believe anyone uses it. You should probably ask on xen-devel to make 
sure though.

  Paul