Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] xen: Drop DOMCTL_getmemlist and xc_get_pfn_list()

[Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 22/01/18 12:41, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 19.01.18 at 20:19, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/xen/include/public/domctl.h
>> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h
>> @@ -1117,7 +1117,7 @@ struct xen_domctl {
>>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_pausedomain                    3
>>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_unpausedomain                  4
>>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_getdomaininfo                  5
>> -#define XEN_DOMCTL_getmemlist                     6
>> +/* #define XEN_DOMCTL_getmemlist                  6 Obsolete */
>>  /* #define XEN_DOMCTL_getpageframeinfo            7 Obsolete - use 
>> getpageframeinfo3 */
>>  /* #define XEN_DOMCTL_getpageframeinfo2           8 Obsolete - use 
>> getpageframeinfo3 */
>>  #define XEN_DOMCTL_setvcpuaffinity                9
> Just like mentioned upon someone else's recent submission to
> remove a domctl sub-op: You want to bump the interface version
> (remember that the bump done for the shim doesn't count as long
> as there is a possible plan to make that other recent commit part
> of a 4.10.x stable release).

There has already been a version bump for 4.11.

> Plus I again question whether
> "Obsolete" is an appropriate description for something that's no
> longer part of the interface (rather than just being suggested to
> no longer be used). Is there any point in keeping the old sub-op
> as a comment in the first place?

To avoid the number being reused.  It also serves as a marker to locate
the change which removed the hypercall if anyone is doing archaeology in
the future.

How about removed instead of obsolete?

~Andrew

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel