[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: Bump __XEN_LATEST_INTERFACE_VERSION__ to 0x00040700


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 18:38:26 +0300
  • Cc: keir@xxxxxxx, tim@xxxxxxx, ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Comment: DomainKeys? See http://domainkeys.sourceforge.net/
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 15:38:33 +0000
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=default; d=bitdefender.com; b=NA96iykDkTaSZ8MthCh3KiChzCfIJLVS3svEzVC8WHXDPNas5Sn2mq3Iyyog4Lbwid4difaEwSD18TPsguUhb82SQloYXA6XTTuE44RvdGbKrKcG/PxYq7dBvu1LjpGommBPDrfcPQkk/UtRoFOd0Ju+zKLPZ/4ZXfyPRTkHTzWwY9LMqlhbeSbn4+pXWHZHVbMACgAhn9BiXBnzYlOPkMCa480oydpiRhlvZWsgJC1GY6xX4c6fKcXrtrmw2UqiRwDsy6Oodu2rHYnyEDFuRTM6G6UBrm57wD+hNj7w5AQXlg6ihPyy3C45wrS4nbzQw4M/8b6LpfCFq6tuFNpXgw==; h=Received:Received:Received:Received:Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-BitDefender-Scanner:X-BitDefender-Spam:X-BitDefender-SpamStamp:X-BitDefender-CF-Stamp;
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

On 09/30/2015 06:34 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 30.09.15 at 17:28, <rcojocaru@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 09/30/2015 06:25 PM, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 30/09/15 16:16, Razvan Cojocaru wrote:
>>>> VM_EVENT_FLAG_SET_REGISTERS and xc_monitor_emulate_each_rep() are
>>>> not available in Xen 4.6, hence the bump.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't you bump XEN_DOMCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION and
>>> VM_EVENT_INTERFACE_VERSION instead?
>>>
>>> The former for xc_monitor_emulate_each_read as it's a DOMCTL and the
>>> latter for VM_EVENT_FLAG_SET_REGISTERS?
>>
>> Yes, judging also by Jan's previous comment that would appear to be the
>> preferred way to go.
> 
> I can't talk about VM_EVENT_INTERFACE_VERSION, but I also
> don't see any reason to bump XEN_DOMCTL_INTERFACE_VERSION
> with the given change. Again - it's just an addition to the interface,
> not an incompatible change.

The same is true for VM_EVENT_FLAG_SET_REGISTERS I'm afraid. Nothing at
all changes for existing vm_event users. In that case, I'll just leave
them all alone.

But the question still remains, if these markers are unreliable in my
case, could you please suggest another which I can check in my scenario?
__XEN_LATEST_INTERFACE_VERSION__ has been fine so far, but I now see
that this has only been a coincidence.


Thanks,
Razvan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.