On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: > > > If Konrad and Boris agree that breaking the kernel's ABI in this way is > > > acceptable in this specific case, I'll defer to them. > > > > My opinion as Xen on ARM hypervisor maintainer is that this is the right > > thing to do in this case. > > Heh. If somebody can guarantee me that (by testing the right variants and > mentioning this in the git commit) that this does not break x86, then > I am fine. > > And by 'break x86' I mean that this combination works: > 32-bit domU on 64-bit dom0 > 64-bit domU on 32-bit dom0 > > And perhaps also the obvious: > 64-bit domU on 64-bit dom0 > 32-bit domU on 32-bit dom0 > > Since the xen-blkback has its own version of the structs there is no > need to change change newer and older version of it. > > As long as that works I am OK sticking it in. > > I think from the ARM perspective it is still in 'experimental' phase > so anything goes to make it work under ARM.
To be honest I am unhappy about this, but I don't want to clutter even more a code path already plagued by an ifdef infestation. Even if the ARM port is experimental, I would prefer to retain compatibility if it was possible to do so with a couple of lines fix. Otherwise I would rather break ABI compatibility than introducing another half a dozen ifdefs. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
