>>> On 11/11/2010 at 4:19 PM, in message <20101111211904.gb31...@kroah.com>,
>>> Greg
KH <g...@kroah.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 01:03:10PM -0700, Ky Srinivasan wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * Array of keys we support in Linux.
>
> Not really, you can support "any" number of keys as the kernel shouldn't
> care, or did I get it wrong?
We currently support only the keys that have been specified in the KVP
specification. I have a more detailed response on the core KVP protocol in
response to your other email on this topic.
>
>> + *
>> + */
>> +#define KVP_MAX_KEY 10
>> +#define KVP_LIC_VERSION 1
>
> Um, this is a nice magic number, care to explain it a bit more?
As I noted in an earlier email, the KVP specification currently requires that
we support 10 keys and it also specifies the ordering of these keys. The
information for the key "IntegrationServicesVersion", is only available in the
kernel (one of the other LIC drivers defines this information).
>> +static char *kvp_keys[KVP_MAX_KEY] = {"FullyQualifiedDomainName",
>> + "IntegrationServicesVersion",
>
> Looks like it matches up with this, right? You might want to make that
> a bit more "tied" together.
>
Yes; I will fix this.
>> + case (KVP_LIC_VERSION):
>> + kvp_transaction_active = true;
>> + kvp_respond_to_host(kvp_data->index,
>> + HV_DRV_VERSION);
>
> Why are you doing this in the kernel? Why not do it from userspace like
> all other messages?
This information is only available in the kernel (defined by another LIC
driver).
Regards,
K. Y
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
