On 09/18/2018 12:10 PM, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 18/09/18 12:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 18.09.18 at 08:02, <jgr...@suse.com> wrote: >>> Instead of using binary hypervisor interfaces for new parameters of >>> domains or cpupools this patch series adds support for generic text >>> based parameter parsing. >>> >>> Parameters are defined via new macros similar to those of boot >>> parameters. Parsing of parameter strings is done via the already >>> existing boot parameter parsing function which is extended a little >>> bit. >>> >>> Parameter settings can either be specified in configuration files of >>> domains or cpupools, or they can be set via new xl sub-commands. >> >> Without having looked at any of the patches yet (not even their >> descriptions) I'm still wondering what the benefit of textual parameters >> really is: Just like "binary" ones, they become part of the public >> interface, and hence subsequently can't be changed any more or >> less than the ones we currently have (in particular, anything valid in >> a guest config file will imo need to remain to be valid and meaningful >> down the road). > > So lets look what would be needed for adding something like the > per-domain xpti parameter using binary interfaces: > > 1 an extension of some domctl interface, maybe bumping of the domctl > interface version > 2 adding the logic to domctl handling > 3 adding libxc support > 4 adding libxl support > 5 adding a new xl sub-command > 6 adding domain config support > 7 adding documentation > > With my approach only 2 (in a modified form, parameter handling instead > of domctl, but comparable in the needed effort) and 7 are needed. > > So once the framework is in place it is _much_ easier to add new > features.
So the idea here is that you pass a full hypervisor command-line style string into a hypercall -- say, "credit2_cap_period_ms=5"? -George _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
