Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 11/13] x86/altp2m: define and implement alternate p2m HVMOP types.

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/07/15 21:10, Sahita, Ravi wrote:
>> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2015 12:34 AM
>>
>>>>> On 06.07.15 at 12:09, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On 01/07/15 19:09, Ed White wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ed White <edmund.h.white@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> I am still very much unconvinced by the argument against having a
>>> single HVMOP_altp2m and a set of subops.  do_domctl() and do_sysctl()
>>> are examples of a subop style hypercall with different XSM settings
>>> for different subops.
>> +1
>
> Thanks Andrew and Jan for providing feedback on what the maintainers want to 
> see for the HVMOP_altp2m.
>
> Just wanted some clarity from a timing perspective on this one so we know how 
> to proceed - is creating a single HVMOP_altp2m and a set of associated subops 
> a requirement to be completed for 4.6 or is that something that can be 
> addressed in a subsequent change?

This, unlike most other bits of the series, is an ABI matter.  Baring
exceptional circumstances, no incompatible changes may be made to the ABI.

This, being a guest visible interface, is critical to get right as it
cannot be changed at a later point.

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel