From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: rcojocaru@bitdefender.com, andrew.cooper3@citrix.com,
tamas@tklengyel.com
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com,
ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org,
jun.nakajima@intel.com, keir@xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2] vm_event: Allow subscribing to write events for specific MSR-s
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 09:20:31 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <570FC34F02000078000E678A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <570F64F3.7030604@bitdefender.com>
>>> Razvan Cojocaru <rcojocaru@bitdefender.com> 04/14/16 11:37 AM >>>
>On 04/13/2016 06:05 PM, Tamas K Lengyel wrote:
>>
>> Yea, well then we need to introduce a new struct with a new subop to
>> pass the bitmask. I guess its a lesson in ABI design to leave some
>> wiggle room for future-proofing it (my bad). So I guess we can introduce
>> XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_ENABLE_V2 and struct xen_domctl_monitor_op_v2
>> where say expand the union to uint64_t just in case?
>
>I can do that, but it would seem that this is somewhat at odds with
>Andrew Cooper's perspective - he has stated that it's within the rules
>and the domctl can be changed without there being the need for
>XEN_DOMCTL_MONITOR_OP_ENABLE_V2. So this should be clarified, please,
>otherwise I'm incurring the risk of changing the code only to have to
>revert it later.
You basically have two options - the new sub-op or changing the existing
one while (if not already done so in a dev cycle) bumping the domctl
interface version.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-14 15:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-13 5:11 [PATCH V2] vm_event: Allow subscribing to write events for specific MSR-s Razvan Cojocaru
2016-04-13 9:47 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2016-04-13 10:07 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-04-13 11:57 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2016-04-13 14:52 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2016-04-13 14:56 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2016-04-13 15:01 ` Andrew Cooper
2016-04-13 15:05 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2016-04-14 9:37 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2016-04-14 15:20 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2016-04-14 15:33 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2016-04-14 15:37 ` Razvan Cojocaru
2016-04-13 14:50 ` Tamas K Lengyel
2016-04-13 14:52 ` Razvan Cojocaru
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=570FC34F02000078000E678A@prv-mh.provo.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=rcojocaru@bitdefender.com \
--cc=tamas@tklengyel.com \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.