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

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2016-02-18 at 12:51 +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:28:08PM +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 think we come to the conclusion that these HVMOPs should be made
> stable. And to do so I'm going to introduce a __XEN_TOOLS_STABLE__ macro
> for them to distinguish from __XEN_TOOLS__.ÂÂAnd then libxendevicemodel
> will have -D__XEN_TOOLS_STABLE__ÂÂonly.
> 
> Does this sound sufficient?

FWIW it sounds like a lot less faff than the direction I was thinking of
taking this! (moving them to a new DMOP hypercall)

Ian.

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