On 15/12/15 13:32, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-12-15 at 13:28 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 15/12/15 13:23, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2015-12-11 at 16:47 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> Don't start a new xenstore domain in case one is already detected to
>>>> be running.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgr...@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c
>>>> b/tools/xenstore/init-
>>>> xenstore-domain.c
>>>> index 068887c..0ca7eed 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/xenstore/init-xenstore-domain.c
>>>> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ static int build(xc_interface *xch)
>>>> } else {
>>>> ssid = SECINITSID_DOMU;
>>>> }
>>>> - rv = xc_domain_create(xch, ssid, handle, 0, &domid, NULL);
>>>> + rv = xc_domain_create(xch, ssid, handle,
>>>> XEN_DOMCTL_CDF_xs_domain,
>>>> + &domid, NULL);
>>>
>>> Doesn't this bit belong earlier on in the series?
>>
>> I can make this patch number 3 of the series, if you like.
>
> Not part of the patch which adds the setting?
Hmm, do you really think so? Isn't the normal setup of a patch series
to split adding a new feature and using it to different patches?
> NB, I think you mean just this hunk rather than reordering this patch?
> That's what I was trying to get at at least.
Why? With specifying the xenstore flag I can make use of it being set
for a xenstore domain in the same patch. I can split it, if you really
like, but this split would be less obvious than the one between this
patch and patch 2, IMO.
Juergen
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
