From: George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com>
To: Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@citrix.com>,
Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
"yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com" <yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
"Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Tim (Xen.org)" <tim@xen.org>,
"xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>,
"zhiyuan.lv@intel.com" <zhiyuan.lv@intel.com>,
"jun.nakajima@intel.com" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:06:49 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5717B729.4080108@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8397b530c70549e9a1a261ab6fb55b5f@AMSPEX02CL03.citrite.net>
On 20/04/16 17:58, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Xen-devel [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org] On Behalf Of Jan
>> Beulich
>> Sent: 20 April 2016 17:53
>> To: George Dunlap; Paul Durrant; Wei Liu; yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com
>> Cc: Kevin Tian; Keir (Xen.org); Andrew Cooper; Tim (Xen.org); xen-
>> devel@lists.xen.org; zhiyuan.lv@intel.com; jun.nakajima@intel.com
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename
>> p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server
>>
>>>>> George Dunlap <george.dunlap@citrix.com> 04/20/16 6:30 PM >>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 4:02 PM, George Dunlap
>> <george.dunlap@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> On 19/04/16 12:02, Yu, Zhang wrote:
>>>>> So I suppose the only place we need change for this patch is
>>>>> for hvmmem_type_t, which should be defined like this?
>>>>>
>>>>> typedef enum {
>>>>> HVMMEM_ram_rw, /* Normal read/write guest RAM */
>>>>> HVMMEM_ram_ro, /* Read-only; writes are discarded */
>>>>> HVMMEM_mmio_dm, /* Reads and write go to the device
>> model */
>>>>> #if __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__ >= 0x00040700
>>>>> HVMMEM_ioreq_server
>>>>> #else
>>>>> HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm
>>>>> #endif
>>>>> } hvmmem_type_t;
>>>>>
>>>>> Besides, does 4.7 still accept freeze exception? It would be great
>>>>> if we can get an approval for this.
>>>>
>>>> Wait, do we *actually* need this? Is anyone actually using this?
>>>>
>>>> I'd say remove it, and if anyone complains, *then* do the #ifdef'ery as
>>>> a bug-fix. I'm pretty sure that's Linux's policy -- You Must Keep
>>>> Userspace Working, but you can break it to see if anyone complains first.
>>
>> We don't normally do it like that - we aim at keeping things compatible
>> right away. I don't know of a case where we would have knowingly broken
>> compatibility for users of the public headers (leaving aside tool stack only
>> stuff of course).
>>
>>> Going further than this:
>>>
>>> The proposed patch series not only changes the name, it changes the
>>> functionality. We do not want code to *compile* against 4.7 and then
>>> not *work* against 4.7; and the worst of all is to compile and sort of
>>> work but do it incorrectly.
>>
>> I had the impression that the renaming patch was what it is - a renaming
>> patch, without altering behavior.
>>
>>> Does the ioreq server have a way of asking Xen what version of the ABI
>>> it's providing? I'm assuming the answer is "no"; in which case code
>>> that is compiled against the 4.6 interface but run on a 4.8 interface
>>> that looks like this will fail in a somewhat unpredictable way.
>>
>> The only thing it can do is ask for the Xen version. The ABI version is not
>> being returned by anything (but perhaps should be).
>>
>>> Given that:
>>>
>>> 1. When we do check the ioreq server functionality in, what's the
>>> correct way to deal with code that wants to use the old interface, and
>>> what do we do with code compiled against the old interface but running
>>> on the new one?
>>
>> For the full series I'm not sure I can really tell.But as said, for the rename
>> patch alone I thought it is just a rename. And that's what we want to get
>> in (see Paul's earlier reply - he wants to see the old name gone, so it won't
>> be used any further).
>>
>>> 2. What's the best thing to do for this release?
>>
>> If the entire series (no matter whether to go in now or later) is changing
>> behavior, then the only choice is to consider the currently used enum
>> value burnt, and use a fresh one for the new semantics.
>
> It sounds like that would be best way. If we don't so that then we have to maintain the write-dm semantics for pages of that type unless the type is claimed (by using the new hypercall) and that's bit icky. I much prefer that pages of the new type are treated as RAM until claimed.
I think the only sensible way to keep the enum is to also keep the
functionality, which would mean using *another* p2m type for ioreq_server.
Given that the functionality isn't going away for 4.7, I don't see an
urgent need to remove the enum; but if Paul does, then a patch renaming
it to HVMMEM_unused would be the way forward then I guess. Once the
underlying p2m type goes away, you'll want to return -EINVAL for this
enum value.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-20 17:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-31 10:53 [PATCH v2 0/3] x86/ioreq server: introduce HVMMEM_ioreq_server mem type Yu Zhang
2016-03-31 10:53 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] x86/ioreq server: Add new functions to get/set memory types Yu Zhang
2016-04-05 13:57 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-05 14:08 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-08 13:25 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-03-31 10:53 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server Yu Zhang
2016-04-05 14:38 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-08 13:26 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-04-08 21:48 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-18 8:41 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-18 9:10 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-18 9:14 ` Wei Liu
2016-04-18 9:45 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-18 16:40 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-18 16:45 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-18 16:47 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-18 16:58 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 11:02 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 11:15 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 11:38 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 11:50 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 16:51 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-20 14:59 ` Wei Liu
2016-04-20 15:02 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-20 16:30 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-20 16:52 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-20 16:58 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-20 17:06 ` George Dunlap [this message]
2016-04-20 17:09 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-21 12:24 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-21 13:31 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-21 13:48 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-21 13:56 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-21 14:09 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-20 17:08 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-21 12:04 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-03-31 10:53 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] x86/ioreq server: Add HVMOP to map guest ram with p2m_ioreq_server to an ioreq server Yu Zhang
[not found] ` <20160404082556.GC28633@deinos.phlegethon.org>
2016-04-05 6:01 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-06 17:13 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-07 7:01 ` Yu, Zhang
[not found] ` <CAFLBxZbLp2zWzCzQTaJNWbanQSmTJ57ZyTh0qaD-+YUn8o8pyQ@mail.gmail.com>
2016-04-08 10:39 ` George Dunlap
[not found] ` <5707839F.9060803@linux.intel.com>
2016-04-08 11:01 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-11 11:15 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-14 10:45 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-18 15:57 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 9:11 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 9:21 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 9:44 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 10:05 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 11:17 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 11:47 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 11:59 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-20 14:50 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-20 14:57 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-20 15:37 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-20 16:30 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-20 16:58 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-21 13:28 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-21 13:21 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-22 11:27 ` Wei Liu
2016-04-22 11:30 ` George Dunlap
2016-04-19 4:37 ` Tian, Kevin
2016-04-19 9:21 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-08 13:33 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-04-11 11:14 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-11 12:20 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-04-11 16:25 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-08 22:28 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-11 11:14 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-11 16:31 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-12 9:37 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-12 15:08 ` Jan Beulich
2016-04-14 9:56 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 4:50 ` Tian, Kevin
2016-04-19 8:46 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 9:27 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 9:40 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 9:49 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 10:01 ` Paul Durrant
2016-04-19 9:54 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 9:15 ` Yu, Zhang
2016-04-19 9:23 ` Paul Durrant
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5717B729.4080108@citrix.com \
--to=george.dunlap@citrix.com \
--cc=Andrew.Cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=Paul.Durrant@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
--cc=yu.c.zhang@linux.intel.com \
--cc=zhiyuan.lv@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).