[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.
- To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 17:25:04 +0100
- Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, StefanoStabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, mpohlack@xxxxxxxxx, ross.lagerwall@xxxxxxxxxx, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, KeirFraser <keir@xxxxxxx>, sasha.levin@xxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 16:34:30 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
Jan Beulich writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re:
[Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring
XENVER_ but sane."):
> On 11.04.16 at 16:22, <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > But to an extent some of this conversation seems to be on matters of
> > taste.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > Jan, what is the downside of introducing a new hypercall ?
>
> Duplicate code effectively doing the same thing.
I agree that duplication is bad, all other things being equal.
But any improvement from an old API to a new one necessarily involves
providing a dual facility during a transition period.
I don't see an explicit deprecation in the patch that is in tree, but
it seems to me to be intended (and, perhaps, implied). Certainly if
we are going to permit these strings etc. to be bigger than fits in
the old hypercall, the old hypercall needs to be deprecated on the
grounds that it can provide incomplete or inaccurate information.
Does this way of looking at it help ?
Thanks,
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
