Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 18 April 2016 17:40
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Andrew Cooper; George Dunlap; jun.nakajima@xxxxxxxxx; Kevin Tian;
> zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx; yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org)
> Subject: Re: RE: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename
> p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server
> 
> >>> Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> 04/18/16 10:41 AM >>>
> > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: 08 April 2016 22:48
> >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 12:53, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> >> > +++ b/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> >> > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ typedef enum {
> >> >      HVMMEM_ram_rw,             /* Normal read/write guest RAM */
> >> >      HVMMEM_ram_ro,             /* Read-only; writes are discarded */
> >> >      HVMMEM_mmio_dm,            /* Reads and write go to the device
> model
> >> */
> >> > -    HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm       /* Read-only; writes go to the device
> >> model */
> >> > +    HVMMEM_ioreq_server,
> >> >  } hvmmem_type_t;
> >> >
> >> >  /* Following tools-only interfaces may change in future. */
> >>
> >> So there's one problem here, which the comment at the bottom
> >> of the context already hints at: This enum is part of the not
> >> tools restricted interface (as HVMOP_get_mem_type is usable
> >> by guests themselves), which we cannot change like this. Since
> >> the meaning of the enumerator value doesn't change, I guess
> >> we can get away with simply retaining its old name for non-up-
> >> to-date __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__.
> >
> >Has the type made it into a release yet. I was assuming we could make the
> change without any need to play with the version since it's only ever been
> present in  >xen-unstable so far.
> 
>   Oh, I didn't realize this got added only after 4.6. If that was the case, 
> then
> the
> change of course could be done without any conditional. Checking ... No,
> 4.6.1
> has it.
> 

Damn. It needs to be ifdef-ed then :-(

> As for any of this going in now - I suppose this would need a freeze
> exception,
> which I think we've meant to avoid as much as possible this time round.
> 

The original patch was posted before the cut-off IIRC so I'm not sure of the 
policy regarding freeze-exceptions.

  Paul

> Jan


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