>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:17, "Justin T. Gibbs" <gi...@scsiguy.com> wrote:
> On Mar 6, 2012, at 1:34 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
>>>>> On 05.03.12 at 22:49, Santosh Jodh <santosh.j...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> …
>
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> /* Create shared ring, alloc event channel. */
>>> err = setup_blkring(dev, info);
>>> if (err)
>>> @@ -889,12 +916,35 @@ again:
>>> goto destroy_blkring;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - err = xenbus_printf(xbt, dev->nodename,
>>> - "ring-ref", "%u", info->ring_ref);
>>> - if (err) {
>>> - message = "writing ring-ref";
>>> - goto abort_transaction;
>>> + if (legacy_backend) {
>>
>> Why not use the simpler interface always when info->ring_order == 0?
>
> Because, as I just found out today via a FreeBSD bug report, that's
> not how XenServer works. If the front-end publishes "ring-page-order",
> the backend assumes the "ring-refNN" XenStore nodes are in effect,
> even if the order is 0.
I was certainly implying to not write the ring-page-order and
num-ring-pages nodes in that case.
> I'm working on a documentation update for blkif.h now.
>
> <sigh>
>
> --
> Justin
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
