[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1351071279.2237.126.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:34:39 +0100
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>
CC: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"mukesh.rathor@...cle.com" <mukesh.rathor@...cle.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] PVH patches for v3.8.
On Wed, 2012-10-24 at 08:13 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > include/xen/interface/memory.h | 29 ++++++-
> > include/xen/interface/physdev.h | 10 ++
>
> ... any changes to the hypervisor interface (didn't look in detail
> what is being changed in these two headers) should first be in
> at least -unstable before being consumed in any official release
> imo.
I'd also like to see at least the interface definitions in the h/v tree
if not the implementation right away.
The flip side is that we have agreed that the interfaces are not
considered set in stone / stable until we've had a chance to review the
implementation, so perhaps it is better not to commit them to
xen-unstable.hg right away.
I don't know what the right answer is. Perhaps we should at a minimum
reserve the subop numbers even if we don't yet define what they mean in
the Xen tree.
Ian.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists