Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 06/13] libxl: change p9 to use generec add function

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 08, 2017 at 03:39:23PM +0300, Oleksandr Grytsov wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 02, 2017 at 02:37:10PM +0300, Oleksandr Grytsov wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >> >> From other side this rename touches only internals changes: no 
> >> >> >> changes
> >> >> >> in config file
> >> >> >> or CLI interface.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As said, the framework need to be ready to deal with PCI anyway.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > What sort of issues do you foresee here?
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you mean in case to rework PCI to use the device framework?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > No, I mean adding the new hook. You said "handle irregular device name
> >> > looks not so good"
> >>
> >> As for me when only internal name of structure or fields are changed
> >> then it should not break anyone configs, setup etc.
> >> Creating hooks in this case makes code hard to read and maintain.
> >>
> >
> > I think you missed my points:
> >
> > 1. libxl types generated from libxl_types.idl aren't just used by xl.
> > Some applications will use libxl types directly. Not breaking xl config
> > doesn't mean not breaking other toolstacks like libvirt. In this
> > particular case, I think we might be able to change p9 to p9s because it
> > is only released a few months back because the only other known
> > toolstack that uses libxl can't possibly use that field at the moment.
> > But Ian might disagree.
> 
> I got it. I think that we have to change p9 to p9s ASAP to avoid future hooks.
> 
> > 2. There is another type, pci dev, that has been there since forever. We
> > need a hook to deal with it, we can't rename it.
> >
> 
> For PCI all hooks are already there (DEFINE_DEVICE_TYPE_STRUCT_X
> to handle pcidev and pci). Also I didn't change PCI fields, names etc.
> In libxl_domain_config it is already pcidevs. So, we are safe with PCI.
> Sorry I don't understand your concern about PCI. Or I miss something?

Yes I think we're covered there. That macro only covers the case
where new characters are appended.

I was thinking maybe we should have something that deal with new names
weather they are longer or shorter than expected.

But I see now it is probably better to rename the p9 device. I will send
out an email asking for opinions.

> 
> > 1 and 2 are orthogonal. 2 is a hard requirement.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best Regards,
> Oleksandr Grytsov.

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