On 03.04.2024 08:16, Jan Beulich wrote: > 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".
You've never responded to this reply of mine, or its follow-up. You also didn't chime in on the discussion Daniel and I were having. I consider my objections unaddressed, and in fact I continue to consider the change to be wrong. Therefore it was inappropriate for you to commit it; it needs reverting asap. If you're not going to do so, I will. Jan
