Hi, First, please forgive me for my bad English. It's so sad.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Campbell [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, May 09, 2014 5:57 PM > To: Gonglei (Arei) > Cc: Jan Beulich; [email protected]; [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; Gaowei > (UVP); Hanweidong (Randy); Huangweidong (C); [email protected]; > [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] Hvmloader: Modify ACPI to only supply _EJ0 methods > for PCIslots that support hotplug by runtime patching > > On Fri, 2014-05-09 at 09:45 +0000, Gonglei (Arei) wrote: > > > And it also seem pretty pointless to send a v4 without addressing > > > all comments you got on v3. > > > > > I don't think so. I have absorbed Ian's all suggestion on v3. And for other > > questions have been answered too, in despite of is me or not. > > Actually you haven't answered "Why is runtime patching the only > option here?" which was originally phrased as: > > > Which appears to involve an awful lot of jumping through hoops... Please > > > can you explain why it is necessary, as opposed to e.g. using a dynamic > > > set of SSDTs? > Ian, I understand your mean now, which consider our method to address this issue is maybe unnecessary, right? And you suggest us to use a dynamic set of SSDTs. TBH I don't know more about the dynamic SSDTs, if you have any details, tell me please, thanks in advance! > On an unrelated note I think the provenance of the python scripts (i.e. > where they came from), and in particular the details of their > relicensing should be in the main commit message for future reference. > OK. Thanks. Best regards, -Gonglei
