Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm to p2m_ioreq_server

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 10:10:00AM +0100, George Dunlap wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> >> Sent: 08 April 2016 22:48
> >> To: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Cc: Andrew Cooper; Paul Durrant; George Dunlap; Jun Nakajima; Kevin Tian;
> >> zhiyuan.lv@xxxxxxxxx; Yu Zhang; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org)
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] x86/ioreq server: Rename p2m_mmio_write_dm
> >> to p2m_ioreq_server
> >>
> >> >>> On 31.03.16 at 12:53, <yu.c.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > --- a/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> >> > +++ b/xen/include/public/hvm/hvm_op.h
> >> > @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ 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
> >> */
> >> > -    HVMMEM_mmio_write_dm       /* Read-only; writes go to the device
> >> model */
> >> > +    HVMMEM_ioreq_server,
> >> >  } hvmmem_type_t;
> >> >
> >> >  /* Following tools-only interfaces may change in future. */
> >>
> >> So there's one problem here, which the comment at the bottom
> >> of the context already hints at: This enum is part of the not
> >> tools restricted interface (as HVMOP_get_mem_type is usable
> >> by guests themselves), which we cannot change like this. Since
> >> the meaning of the enumerator value doesn't change, I guess
> >> we can get away with simply retaining its old name for non-up-
> >> to-date __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__.
> >>
> >
> > Has the type made it into a release yet. I was assuming we could make the 
> > change without any need to play with the version since it's only ever been 
> > present in  xen-unstable so far.
> 
> I think you need a Release Manager ack for that; but if it's the case
> that the type has never been seen in public, then I think it should be
> able to be renamed (in fact, we should rename it so that we don't have
> to deal with backwards compatibility later).
> 

If it is not released yet, feel free to change it -- but at this point
you also need to present argument on why it should be changed. I don't
expect the seddery too hard to review.

Wei.

>  -George

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