On Wed, 8 Mar 2017, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 08.03.17 at 15:45, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote: > > I was looking at the backend code and see it is using DOMCTL command. I > > guess it is considered that the console backend will be tied to a > > specific Xen version. Am I correct? > > I don't think I'm qualified to talk about the console backend > implementation (and possible quirks it has). Generally I'd expect > backends not to use domctl-s, as that would tie them to the tool > stack domain. > > > so maybe we can introduce new domctl command for handling vUART. This > > would avoid us to commit on an ABI and allow us to extend it if > > necessary in the future to support multiple UARTs. > > Well, without having the context of who it would be to use such a > domctl (and for what purpose) I don#t think I can comment here.
I guess the assumption was that xenconsoled was part of the Xen tools. Indeed, it is part of the tools and is installed as such. I don't have an opinion on this. If introducing a new DOMCTL makes the code nicer in xen and xenconsoled, taking away some edges, like the changes to evtchn_send, then we should probably just do it. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
