linux-kernel - Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH V5] PVH patches for v3.8.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1351072415.2237.137.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Oct 2012 10:53:35 +0100
From:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>
To:	Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.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 Wed, 2012-10-24 at 10:44 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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?

Mukesh was having trouble keeping up with rebasing both the Linux and
Xen sides simultaneously to keep up with development, so he decided to
concentrate on getting the Linux side in first.

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/