On 02.04.2024 19:06, Andrew Cooper wrote: > The commit makes a claim without any kind of justification.
Well, what does "have no business" leave open? > The claim is false, and the commit broke lsevtchn in dom0. Or alternatively lsevtchn was doing something that was never meant to work (from Xen's perspective). > It is also quite > obvious from XSM_TARGET that it has broken device model stubdoms too. Why would that be "obvious"? What business would a stubdom have to look at Xen's side of an evtchn? > Whether to return information about a xen-owned evtchn is a matter of policy, > and it's not acceptable to short circuit the XSM on the matter. I can certainly accept this as one possible view point. As in so many cases I'm afraid I dislike you putting it as if it was the only possible one. In summary: The supposed justification you claim is missing in the original change is imo also missing here then: What business would any entity in the system have to look at Xen's side of an event channel? Back at the time, 3 people agreed that it's "none". Jan
