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

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 17.02.16 at 18:28, <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> 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:
> 
>   #define HVMOP_track_dirty_vram    6
>   #define HVMOP_modified_memory    7
>   #define HVMOP_set_mem_type    8
>   #define HVMOP_inject_msi         16
>   #define HVMOP_create_ioreq_server 17
>   #define HVMOP_get_ioreq_server_info 18
>   #define HVMOP_map_io_range_to_ioreq_server 19
>   #define HVMOP_unmap_io_range_from_ioreq_server 20
>   #define HVMOP_destroy_ioreq_server 21
>   #define HVMOP_set_ioreq_server_state 22

I've just grep-ed both qemu trees, and neither appears to directly
use any of these constants. So as long as qemu's use is solely
through libxc interfaces, I don't see an immediate issue.

> 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.

Qemu, in the original consideration, may also have been deemed
part of the tools.

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

Well, as long as we continue to tie libxc to the hypervisor version,
I think hiding versioning issues there would be fine.

Jan


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