Re: [Xen-devel] Stabilising some tools only HVMOPs?

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2016-02-17 at 17:28 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> Hi all
> 
> Tools people are in the process of splitting libxenctrl into a set of
> stable libraries. One of the proposed libraries is libxendevicemodel
> which has a collection of APIs that can be used by device model.
> 
> Currently we use QEMU as reference to extract symbols and go through
> them one by one. Along the way we discover QEMU is using some tools
> only HVMOPs.
> 
> The list of tools only HVMOPs used by QEMU are:
> 
> Â #define HVMOP_track_dirty_vramÂÂÂÂ6
> Â #define HVMOP_modified_memoryÂÂÂÂ7
> Â #define HVMOP_set_mem_typeÂÂÂÂ8
> Â #define HVMOP_inject_msiÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ16
> Â #define HVMOP_create_ioreq_server 17
> Â #define HVMOP_get_ioreq_server_info 18
> Â #define HVMOP_map_io_range_to_ioreq_server 19
> Â #define HVMOP_unmap_io_range_from_ioreq_server 20
> Â #define HVMOP_destroy_ioreq_server 21
> Â #define HVMOP_set_ioreq_server_state 22
> 
> I'm curious about the rationale for making them tools only in the
> first place and what needs to be done to make them stable.

FWIW (IMHO, YMMV etc) it is becoming increasing incorrect to consider the
device model as "tools" in the face of disaggregation and support for
(nearly) arbitrary upstream QEMU versions etc.

> 
> The option to build stable library APIs on top of unstable hypervisor
> APIs is always there, but that looks suboptimal to me.
> 
> Wei.

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