Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] SUPPORT.md matrix fixes (series "C")

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 25/04/18 15:43, George Dunlap wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Apr 25, 2018, at 2:32 PM, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 25/04/18 15:21, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Juergen Gross writes ("Re: [PATCH for-4.11 0/2] SUPPORT.md matrix fixes 
>>> (series "C")"):
>>>> Not related to these patches, but:
>>>>
>>>> SUPPORT.md of 4.10 seems to have some entries different to 4.11. Do we
>>>> want to change those? This might result in a more readable table.
>>>>
>>>> e.g.:
>>>>
>>>> 4.10: ### x86/PVH guest
>>>>          Status: Supported
>>>>
>>>> 4.11: ### x86/PVH
>>>>          Status, domU: Supported
>>>>          Status, dom0: Experimental
>>>
>>> Indeed.  I noticed this when I was backporting my reformatting.
>>> I considered changing this but I think TBH that this slight deviation
>>> in naming is going to occur occasionally.
>>
>> The resulting table is rather hard to read, don't you think?
>>
>> Especially the supported guest types are difficult to compare between
>> 4.10 and 4.11.
> 
> Right, so there are four options:
> 
> 1. Never rename / reorganize SUPPORT.md categories

As we can see in the example above this won't work very well.

> 2. Backport all renames / reorganizations to all supported versions

+1

As this will only be more specific it is a win. Again above example:
How would you read the 4.10 PVH support? Is dom0 supported? Its a guest
after all...

> 3. Introduce some sort of “mapping” of options so that the table generator 
> can correctly construct rows

Seems to be rather complex, e.g. in above example

> 4. Tolerate duplicate rows for renamed / reorganized features

This might grow rather ugly results after some more versions.


Juergen


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel