[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] wrong io/tpmif.h made it into upstream Linux
>>> On 26.09.13 at 17:59, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 26/09/13 16:02, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 26.09.13 at 16:53, Daniel De Graaf <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 09/26/2013 10:17 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 26.09.13 at 13:52, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> in the course of reviewing the hypervisor side of this (i.e. the >>>>> canonical copy of the header) I had requested some renames, >>>>> and they had also been carried out there. Why did this not get >>>>> adjusted _before_ hitting Linus'es tree? It's particularly strange >>>>> because this can't be because different people were doing one >>>>> side and the other... >>> >>> This was a mistake on my part. When these changes were made, the header >>> for Linux had already been split off in order to remove unnecessary >>> typedefs and extra structure definitions in the Xen header. The v4 patch >>> for Linux was just based on the v3 Linux patch, and the patch for Xen >>> making these changes (which you wrote and I just Acked) didn't mention >>> needing to make a parallel change the Linux patch, so I never made the >>> changes. >> >> To me it goes without saying that if the master copy changes, >> clones should take care to propagate them properly. > > So long as the ABI itself is consistent I don't see any real problem > with there being differences in structure/field names. But it's confusing at the very least. >>>> Additionally using xen:vtpm as module alias collides with the v1 >>>> implementation too afaict. Was avoiding conflicts with the old >>>> interface also not being considered here at all? Afaict the >>>> backend also would need to announce itself differently from >>>> the v1 one to xenbus... >>> >>> The feature-protcol-v2 node was created to allow distinguishing the new >>> interface from the old one. Naming the xenbus node "vtpm2" was >>> considered for a while, but I believe it was considered unnecessary with >>> the introduction of that node. >>> >>> It should be possible for the the driver to choose which shared page >>> format to use based on the feature node, if a driver supporting both >>> protocols were needed. >> >> But that leaves out the existing (non-upstream) v1 drivers that >> won't know to look for that new node. A protocol change should >> never claim to be the same version protocol as its predecessor. > > Surely there isn't a problem here? The v2 frontend won't connect to a > v1 backend because the v1 backend doesn't report feature-protocol-v2, right? But the other way round it would happen. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |