On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 05:09:24PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Paul Durrant writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9] libxl/xl:
> Overhaul passthrough setting logic"):
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2019 at 17:34, Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Jürgen Groß writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] [XEN PATCH for-4.13 v2 9/9]
> > > libxl/xl: Overhaul passthrough setting logic"):
> > > > On 11.10.19 15:31, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > > > I do not have a strong opinion about this. I would be happy with
> > > > > "auto" (or "default" maybe).
> > > >
> > > > "unspecified"?
> > >
> > > That is IMO the best suggestion so far so I will go with that in my
> > > v3.
> >
> > Seems odd to specify a parameter with a value of 'unspecified' ;-)
>
> I have tried to infer +1/-1/0 numbers from the mail thread. I have
> also looked at libxl_types.idl to see how many times we are using
> what name to represent roughly this concept:
>
> Bikeshed colour Paul Juergen George Ian Anthony Wei #already
>
> unknown ? ? -1 +2 ? ? 17
> default ? ? ? 0 ? ? 2
> auto -1 ? +1 0 ? ? 1
> unspecified -1 +1 ? 0 ? ? 0
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> libxl maintainers
Maybe "unknown" is more used in the API, but when I look at the manpage
"unknown" value as never been used before. On the other hand "default"
as been used twice in the man page. (and one "defaults" and two other
"default" that I'm not sure if they can be in the config file.)
So I would say +2 for default and +1 for unknown.
--
Anthony PERARD
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
