On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-12-10 at 12:29 +0000, Anthony Perard wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Dec 2010, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 2010-12-09 at 19:42 +0000, anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/tools/libxl/libxl.c b/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > > > index 0feb93f..0f6e632 100644
> > > > --- a/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > > > +++ b/tools/libxl/libxl.c
> > > > @@ -1256,9 +1256,9 @@ static char **
> > > > libxl_build_device_model_args_new(libxl__gc *gc,
> > > > if (!dm_args)
> > > > return NULL;
> > > >
> > > > - flexarray_set(dm_args, num++, "qemu-system-xen");
> > > > - flexarray_set(dm_args, num++, "-xen-domid");
> > > > + flexarray_set(dm_args, num++, "qemu-dm");
> > >
> > > This bit doesn't seem to correspond to the patch description, was the
> > > change deliberate or did it slip in by mistake?
> >
> > This change was deliberate. As this hunk don't really change anything, I
> > just don't explain it in the commit message. But I should have said the
> > following in the description.
> >
> > Also it changes argv[0] of the device model from "qemu-system-xen" to
> > "qemu-dm".
>
> In the non-stubdom case convention would be for argv[0] to contain
> info->device_model (or is it "libxl__abs_path(&gc, info->device_model,
> libxl_libexec_path()),"? eurk).
Yes, this will be a little bit better, with info->device_model, like a
shell would do.
> In the stubdom case I guess it might as well be whatever we like.
--
Anthony PERARD
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home