[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5087D4A102000078000A3E23@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:44:33 +0100
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@...e.com>
To: "Ian Campbell" <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
Cc: "Stefano Stabellini" <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"xen-devel" <xen-devel@...ts.xen.org>,
"Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
"mukesh.rathor@...cle.com" <mukesh.rathor@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] PVH patches for v3.8.
>>> On 24.10.12 at 11:34, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com> wrote:
> 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.
But even then - what use is it to have 3.8 possibly only work on
some intermediate (perhaps even just privately built) hypervisors?
Jan
--
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