On Tue, 2011-10-11 at 08:36 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> 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.
I hadn't noticed that field, yes using that would be preferable since it
retains ABI compatibility.
>
> Jan
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home