On Mon, 14 Dec 2015, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.12.15 at 17:56, <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: > > For the original issue here, could the flag be exposed as a > > XEN_SYSCTL_PHYSCAP_???? > > Yes, I think it could, albeit calling this a "capability" or "feature" > seems odd (since really the original behavior was bogus/buggy). > But - with sysctl not being a stable interface, is making qemu use > this actually a good idea? I.e. won't we paint ourselves into the > corner of needing to write compatibility wrappers in qemu > whenever XEN_SYSCTL_physinfo (or its libxc wrapper) changes?
Even though it might increase the number of compatibility wrappers that we need today, I think that Ian will be able to eventually switch it over to a stable interface?
