On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 20:09:44 +0300 Roman Kagan <rka...@virtuozzo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:54:11PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:step...@networkplumber.org] > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:03 AM > > > To: Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> > > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>; Roman Kagan > > > <rka...@virtuozzo.com>; Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>; KY > > > Srinivasan <k...@microsoft.com>; Vitaly Kuznetsov > > > <vkuzn...@redhat.com>; k...@vger.kernel.org; Denis V . Lunev > > > <d...@openvz.org>; Haiyang Zhang <haiya...@microsoft.com>; > > > x...@kernel.org; linux-ker...@vger.kernel.org; Ingo Molnar > > > <mi...@redhat.com>; H. Peter Anvin <h...@zytor.com>; > > > de...@linuxdriverproject.org; Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] hyperv: move VMBus connection ids to uapi > > > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:58:36 -0800 > > > Christoph Hellwig <h...@infradead.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 09:50:49AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > > Lastly, there is licensing issues on headers. It would be good to > > > > > have any > > > > > userspace ABI headers licensed with a more liberal license so that > > > > > BSD > > > and DPDK drivers > > > > > could use them directly. Right now each one reinvents. > > > > > > > > Microsoft could easily solves this problem by offering a suitably > > > > liberally licensed header documenting the full HyperV guest protocol > > > > that Linux and other projects could use. > > > > > > The issue is if same header file mixes kernel and userspace API stuff. > > > > > > Once the files are arranged right, I will submit trivial change to > > > comments > > > to indicate the liberal licensing of userspace API headers. > > > > Let us take this one step at a time. I know for a fact that not all the > > guest host > > protocols on Hyper-V are guaranteed to be stable. Some of the protocols are > > part of > > the published MSFT standards such RNDIS and these obviously are guaranteed > > to be > > stable. For the rest it is less clear. The fact that we need to ensure > > compatibility of existing > > Windows guests tells me that any host side changes will be versioned and > > the hosts will always > > support older guests. > > > > I would like to minimize what we include in the uapi header; especially > > when MSFT has made no guarantees > > with regards how they may be evolved. I will also work on getting some > > clarity on both stability and > > under what license we would expose the uapi header. > > Am I correct assuming that QEMU is currently the only user of > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h? > > Then I think we're fine withdrawing it from uapi as a whole and letting > QEMU pull it in through its header-harvesting scripts (as does now > anyway). This would lift all licensing and longterm API stability > expectations. > > Roman. Thanks, that prevents lots of problems. That is how I handle iproute2 as well. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
