Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCHv1] xen/evtchn: add IOCTL_EVTCHN_RESTRICT

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/11/2016 12:44 PM, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 11/07/16 17:33, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 11/07/16 17:15, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> On 11/07/16 16:31, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 07/11/2016 10:57 AM, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>>> diff --git a/include/uapi/xen/evtchn.h b/include/uapi/xen/evtchn.h
>>>>> index 14e833ee4..f057b53 100644
>>>>> --- a/include/uapi/xen/evtchn.h
>>>>> +++ b/include/uapi/xen/evtchn.h
>>>>> @@ -85,4 +85,19 @@ struct ioctl_evtchn_notify {
>>>>>  #define IOCTL_EVTCHN_RESET                               \
>>>>>   _IOC(_IOC_NONE, 'E', 5, 0)
>>>>>  
>>>>> +/*
>>>>> + * Restrict this file descriptor so that it can only be used to bind
>>>>> + * new interdomain events from one domain.
>>>>> + *
>>>>> + * Once a file descriptor has been restricted it cannot be
>>>>> + * de-restricted, and must be closed and re-opened.  Event channels
>>>>> + * which were bound before restricting remain bound afterwards, and
>>>>> + * can be notified as usual.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> +#define IOCTL_EVTCHN_RESTRICT_DOMID                      \
>>>>> + _IOC(_IOC_NONE, 'E', 100, sizeof(struct ioctl_evtchn_restrict_domid))
>>>> Is there a reason why you picked 100 and not 6?
>>> Because we've had this patch for years in xenserver like this and I
>>> didn't see any need to change the ABI.  But if it's preferred I can make
>>> this 6 (and manage the transition internally).
>> This should become 6, and we manage the transition.  It is not like its
>> hard to manage.
> Ok.

With that

Reviewed-by: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>




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