Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] public/io/netif.h: make control ring hash protocol more general

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 16 February 2016 11:19
> To: Paul Durrant
> Cc: Ian Campbell; Ian Jackson; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir
> (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org)
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] public/io/netif.h: make control ring hash protocol
> more general
> 
> >>> On 16.02.16 at 12:14, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>  -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 16 February 2016 11:11
> >> To: Paul Durrant
> >> Cc: Ian Campbell; Ian Jackson; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Keir
> >> (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org)
> >> Subject: RE: [PATCH v2] public/io/netif.h: make control ring hash protocol
> >> more general
> >>
> >> >>> On 16.02.16 at 12:02, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >> From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >> >> Sent: 16 February 2016 10:23
> >> >> On Mon, 2016-02-15 at 11:14 +0000, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> >> > + */
> >> >> > +#ifdef NETIF_DEFINE_TOEPLITZ
> >> >>
> >> >> If we go with this then this should have an addtional XEN_ on the
> >> >> front.
> >> >
> >> > The header is inconsistent at the moment. Some things are prefixed
> with
> >> XEN_
> >> > some are not so if you want this prefixed then I think it's best I add
> >> > another patch before this to change all unqualified netif/NETIF
> occurrences
> >> > to xen_netif/XEN_NETIF... it will also mean less post-processing when I
> >> > re-import the header into Linux.
> >>
> >> You'd need to be rather careful here: Any such identifiers which
> >> were there already in 4.6 (or any other release) would have to
> >> remain unchanged.
> >
> > Is that true? The Linux header is quite different (in that everything is
> > already prefixed) and I was assuming any user of the header file would
> have
> > to have an explicit 'import into frontend/backend repo' step where
> > compatibility could be fixed up.
> 
> No, I don't think we can impose such a rule on our (possibly unknown)
> downstreams. As an example, linux-2.6.18-xen.hg does verbatim
> imports of the headers (whenever such is due).

Ok. Seems a little fragile, but if that's the case then I won't make the change 
(to existing definitions).

  Paul

> 
> Jan


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