>>> 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