Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ but sane.

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/04/16 18:21, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk writes ("Re: REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested 
> Was:Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall 
> mirroring XENVER_ but sane."):
>> On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 10:33:33AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Yet nothing has happened, so I think the patch needs to be
>>> reverted (at least for the time being).
>> Wait what?!
> I'm sorry that I didn't understand that we were being asked for a
> second opinion about this disagreement.  I'm afriad that the original
> email wasn't really comprehensible to me as a summary of the
> disagreement.
>
> Would someone please summarise ?  Especially, since Jan is AFAICT
> saying that this new hypercall is not needed, it would be helpful to
> know why those who think it is needed want it.

The new hypercall is very definitely needed, which is why I requested it
during earlier revisions of the xsplice series.

The interface for the old version was sufficiently useless that build_id
can't be added to it.  (Specifically, there is no ability to return
varialble length data).  Also, by its design, it has some
unreasonably-short limits on extraversion and changesetinfo, both of
which could do with being longer for distros trying to encode "delta
from upstream" information.

The new hypercall has a ration interface where you don't blindly trust
that the caller passed you a pointer to a suitably-sized structure.

I am very much +10 keep to the patch.

~Andrew

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