On 11/03/2021 14:18, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 11:05:32AM +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 11/03/2021 08:27, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> Depends on what __XEN_TOOLS__ really means - to guard things accessible >>> to any part of the tool stack, or to guard unstable interfaces only. >> As far as I'm concerned, __XEN_TOOLS__ should always have been spelled >> __XEN_UNSTABLE_ABI__. >> >> For better or worse, the fact that we currently do have unstable >> interfaces, which aren't in an obvious namespace such as >> xen/public/unstable/, means that there is some value in some form of >> protection to prevent users from inadvertently using an interface which >> will explode on them with a mismatched hypervisor. > I think using __XEN_UNSTABLE_ABI__ would be way clearer than > __XEN_TOOLS__, or even placing those in a separate directory as you > mention.
I plan to submit a rename for 4.16. I don't expect I'll have much luck arguing for a release ack at this point, and isn't totally risk-free. Re-laying-out the headers is far more invasive, and was also a trick I was planning to pull when we've got a rough plan for the other ABI improvements agreed. ~Andrew
