[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131203160018.67542a53@alan.etchedpixels.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 16:00:18 +0000
From: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@...aro.org>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, patches@...aro.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@...rix.com>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xen/block: Correctly define structures in public
headers on ARM32 and ARM64
On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:40:37 +0000
Julien Grall <julien.grall@...aro.org> wrote:
> On ARM (32 bits and 64 bits), the double-word is 8-bytes aligned. This will
> result on different structure from Xen and Linux repositories.
>
> As Linux is using __packed__ attribute, it must have a 4-bytes padding before
> each "id" field.
>
> This change breaks guest block support with older kernel. IMHO, it's acceptable
> because Xen on ARM is still on Tech Preview and the hypercall ABI is not yet
> freezed.
How does a guest ascertain which API to use ?
How does the patch ensure new kernels on existing hypervisor versions
don't break ?
What is the failure case given the alignment change seems potentially to
produce valid but incorrect I/O requests - can it cause corruption ?
It seems to me you should be defining
struct blkif_request_rw_v2
and using the correct version according to which API the hypervisor
requires, not just breaking it.
Alan
--
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