>>> On 17.01.19 at 12:56, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 04:52:42AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 17.01.19 at 09:57, <roger....@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > While not against using physdevop if we agree that a new hypercall is
>> > the way to go, I would prefer a domctl because this hypercall would
>> > only be used by toolstack components, and thus doesn't need to be
>> > added to the public stable ABI available to all guests, even if the
>> > functionality is actually limited to stubdomains.
>> 
>> But a new sub-op doesn't need to be part of the stable ABI.
>> See how e.g. various of the memory sub-ops are restricted to
>> be used by the tool stack, and hence not required to remain
>> unchanged.
> 
> Oh, then I'm all in for a physdevop limited to stubdomain only usage.

Hmm, stubdomain is different: How would you limit this in the
header? Also stub domains are allowed to rely on a stable
interface, so I'm afraid a domctl is out of scope here anyway.
It is bad enough that there are four domctl-s violating this
rule (see xsm/dummy.h:xsm_domctl()).

Jan



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

Reply via email to