Hi Ayan and Julien, > On 16 Nov 2024, at 10:57, Julien Grall <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Ayan, > > On 15/11/2024 18:53, Ayan Kumar Halder wrote: >>>> +Assign vCPUs from CPU pool >>>> +-------------------------- >>>> + >>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_assign_vcpus_cpu_pool~1` >>>> + >>>> +Description: >>>> +Xen shall assign vCPUs to a domain from a CPU pool. >>> >>> Same remark about the wording. You create a domain with N vCPUs and >>> *assign* a CPU pool to a domain. >> Ok, so all the previous 3 requirements can be merged into >> Xen shall create a domain with N vCPUs and assign a CPU pool to a domain. >> Or >> Xen shall create a domain with N vCPUs. > > I think this one is better because it is not mandatory for the user to select > a CPU pool and you will have it ... > >> (which of the two looks better to you if we keep the next requirement ?) > > ... by the next one. > >> Comments: >> Here N is determined by the device tree configuration provided by the user. >>> You also assign pCPU to a CPU pool. >>> >>> But I am not sure about if this requirement is actually necessary given ... >>> >>>> + >>>> +Rationale: >>>> + >>>> +Comments: >>>> + >>>> +Covers: >>>> + - `XenProd~static_domains_configuration~1` >>>> + >>>> +Specify CPU pool scheduler >>>> +-------------------------- >>>> + >>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_specify_cpu_pool_scheduler~1` >>>> + >>>> +Description: >>>> +Xen shall assign a CPU pool scheduler to a domain. >>> >>> ... you have th is one. >> So, we can keep it as it is. >>> >>>> + >>>> +Rationale: >>>> + >>>> +Comments: >>>> + >>>> +Covers: >>>> + - `XenProd~static_domains_configuration~1` >>>> + >>>> +Assign virtual UART >>>> +------------------- >>>> + >>>> +`XenSwdgn~arm64_assign_virtual_uart~1` >>>> + >>>> +Description: >>>> +Xen shall assign a virtual UART to a domain. >>> >>> Are we talking about the virtual PL011 or the fake emulation of the real >>> UART we do? >> virtual PL011. > > Is it possible to specify it in the market requirements? > > [...] > >>>> + >>>> +Static VM definition >>>> +-------------------- >>>> + >>>> +`XenMkt~static_vm_definition~1` >>>> + >>>> +Description: >>>> +Xen shall support specifying resources for a domain. >>> >>> Compare to the other requirements, this is quite a vague. Should we list >>> the resources? >> The list of resources depends on what the user has provided in the device >> tree configuration. >> But the requirement is correct as it is. Xen allows direct assignment of >> devices to domains (ie passthrough). >> How do you want to write it ? > > This is probably a better question for Bertrand. I don't know how market > requirements are usually described. I was making a comparison with the other > where you explicitely listed the expected resources (e.g. CPU, Memory, > device).
I definitely agree with Julien here, this requirement is not clear as "resources" is not specified or defined. I would highly suggest to be more specific by listing what we mean by resources and maybe even split this requirement in several to make testing and linking easier. Cheers Bertrand > > Cheers, > > -- > Julien Grall
