From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752522Ab2GSX2h (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:28:37 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:52984 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751844Ab2GSX2f (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jul 2012 19:28:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 16:28:32 -0700 From: "Greg KH (gregkh@linuxfoundation.org)" To: KY Srinivasan Cc: Paolo Bonzini , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "virtualization@lists.osdl.org" Subject: Re: 0xB16B00B5? Really? (was Re: Move hyperv out of the drivers/staging/ directory) Message-ID: <20120719232832.GA6317@kroah.com> References: <6E21E5352C11B742B20C142EB499E048081EB789@TK5EX14MBXC124.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20111004170415.GA1320@suse.de> <6E21E5352C11B742B20C142EB499E048081EB86F@TK5EX14MBXC124.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <20111004193414.GA15672@suse.de> <4FFFF711.8040003@redhat.com> <426367E2313C2449837CD2DE46E7EAF923547292@SN2PRD0310MB382.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20120719210709.GA32031@kroah.com> <426367E2313C2449837CD2DE46E7EAF9235475EE@SN2PRD0310MB382.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> <20120719220142.GA1513@kroah.com> <426367E2313C2449837CD2DE46E7EAF923547620@SN2PRD0310MB382.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <426367E2313C2449837CD2DE46E7EAF923547620@SN2PRD0310MB382.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 10:30:38PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > As you know, this ID has been in use for a long time now. While the hypervisor > > > does not interpret the guest ID that is registered, I am not sure what > > dependencies > > > there might be on this value. > > > > Could you please go find out the answer to this? > > That is easier said than done. I have sent emails out asking this very question and I have > not received a definitive answer yet. Not knowing if and when I can get a definitive > answer here, I chose the least risky approach in my patch. What happens if you test with different values? > > If, as you originally stated, there is a range of values we can use, > > then we should probably use another one, right? > > On the Windows side this ID namespace is managed well. It is? How is this managed? What does this tell the hypervisor? What changes with the different values? > However on the Linux side, we have really had this current ID in use > for almost five years now. I am not aware of any pool of IDs available > for Linux usage except that Linux IDs be distinct from the guest IDs > in use by MSFT operating systems. If I were to change the guest ID, I > would probably want to comply with the MSFT guidance on constructing > these IDs (although not all fields may be relevant for Linux). What are those rules? thanks, greg k-h