Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 08.04.16 at 19:24, <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>> On 30.03.16 at 17:43, <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Since they're all cosmetic, if you take care of all of them, feel free
>>> to stick my ack on the result.
>>
>> Actually - no, please don't. While the patch is fine content wise
>> then from my perspective, I'm still lacking a convincing argument
>> of why this new hypercall is needed in the first place. If others
>> are convinced by the argumentation between (mostly, iirc) you
>> and Andrew, I'm not going to stand in the way, but I'm also not
>> going to approve of the code addition without being myself
>> convinced.
> 
> I don't see in this patch a justification for why Konrad (and/or
> Andrew) think the new version is needed, nor do I see in this
> particular thread why Jan thinks it's not necessary, so I don't really
> know what's going on.  I'm happy to give my opinion of someone wants
> to catch me up.

Well, the hypercall is redundant with an existing one, and the
semantics needed for adding the build-id sub-op don't really
require this new hypercall either. So it not adding new
functionality, I think it simply needs to be demonstrated that
the new variant is needed, not that it's not needed.

Jan



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