Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 1/8] xen: import ring.h from xen

[Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>]

On 28/03/17 00:48, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 24/03/17 18:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>> On 23/03/17 19:22, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 23 Mar 2017, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>>> On 23/03/2017 14:55, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>> On 23/03/17 14:00, Greg Kurz wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2017 11:19:05 -0700
>>>>>>>> Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do not use the ring.h header installed on the system. Instead, import
>>>>>>>>> the header into the QEMU codebase. This avoids problems when QEMU is
>>>>>>>>> built against a Xen version too old to provide all the ring macros.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed-by: Greg Kurz <groug@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>> CC: anthony.perard@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> CC: jgross@xxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> NB: The new macros have not been committed to Xen yet. Do not apply 
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> patch until they do.
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Looking at your other series for the kernel part of this feature:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/3/22/761
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I realize that the ring.h header from Xen also exists in the kernel 
>>>>>>>> tree... 
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Shouldn't all the code that can be used in both kernel and userspace 
>>>>>>>> go to a
>>>>>>>> header file under include/uapi in the kernel tree ? And then we would 
>>>>>>>> import
>>>>>>>> it under include/standard-headers/linux in the QEMU tree and we could 
>>>>>>>> keep it
>>>>>>>> in sync using scripts/update-linux-headers.sh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Cc'ing Paolo for insights.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As Xen isn't part of the kernel we don't want that. You can use and/or
>>>>>>> build qemu with xen-9pfs backend support on an old Linux kernel without
>>>>>>> the related frontend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As long as the header changes rarely, I guess it's fine not to go
>>>>>> through update-linux-headers.sh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very rarely, last time ring.h was changed was 2015, and to introduce a
>>>>> new macro (which we don't necessarily need in QEMU).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH I don't see the advantage of not using the headers from Xen. This
>>>>>>> is working for qdisk and pvusb backends and for all the Xen libraries.
>>>>>>> Do you expect the 9pfs backend to be used for a qemu version built
>>>>>>> against a Xen version not supporting that backend?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I think that is entirely possible: Xen and QEMU versions can mix
>>>>> and match.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keeping in mind that the 9pfs backend has actually no build dependencies
>>>>> on Xen, except for these new ring.h macros, we have the following
>>>>> options:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) we build the 9pfs backend only for Xen >= 4.9, because of the new
>>>>>    macros in ring.h that we need
>>>>
>>>> Right. You have sent 9pfs support patches for Xen tools. So obviously
>>>> you need a proper Xen version to use 9pfs. Why not build qemu against
>>>> it? Do you really expect a new Xen being used with an old qemu while
>>>> wanting to use new features? That makes no sense for me.
>>>  
>>> Tools support is needed to setup the frontend/backend connection as
>>> usual, but that's not a requirement for building the 9pfs backend. In
>>> fact, the backend doesn't need any tools support for it to work. The
>>> macro themselves are just a convenience - the backend would work just
>>> fine without them. Why restrict the QEMU build gratuitously?
>>
>> You are duplicating a header without any real benefit I can see. This
>> is adding future work for keeping both versions of the header in sync.
>>
>> In which scenario would you want qemu to support xen-9pfs without being
>> built against a Xen version supporting xen-9pfs?
>>
>> I am not completely against copying the header, I just don't see an
>> advantage for any distro or user in doing it.
> 
> I understand your point of view, and honestly it wouldn't be a problem
> doing it the way you suggested either. However, I think that going
> forward it will be less of a maintenance pain to keep ring.h in sync,
> compared to maintaining a versioned build dependency between Xen and
> QEMU for the compilation of one PV backend. We do have version checks
> in QEMU for Xen compatibility, but not for PV backends or the xenpv
> machine yet.

For the pvUSB backend I just used a mandatory macro from the header for
the #ifdef. The backend will signal support when it was defined during
build and will refuse initialization otherwise. Xen tools are able to
recoginze qemu support of the backend by looking into Xenstore.


Juergen


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