>>> On 10.10.11 at 21:57, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 08:20:02PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 17:42 +0100, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 05:13:07PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>
>> > > In any case it should also be posted against the canonical inter-guest
>> > > interface definition in the xen tree for review with that in mind.
>> >
>> > Yes! But I was thinking to first let this one rattle a bit and see what
>> > folks thought about it before submitting the xen-devel.
>>
>> It's a good idea to get ABI changes out for review before the
>> implementation rattles around so much that changing it becomes hard.
>
> OK, lets drop this until we get that straigthen out. I've posted
> http://lists.xensource.com/archives/html/xen-devel/2011-10/msg00642.html the
> changes to
> Xen ABI.
Yeah, but that didn't get adjusted after IanC's comments (structure
alignment, BLKIF_OP_DISCARD_FLAG_SECURE value).
Further I wonder why you don't use the "reserved" field instead of
extending the structure at the end.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home