On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On 11/12/13 17:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > 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
On 11/12/13 17:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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
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.
On Wed, 2013-12-04 at 09:28 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> This could probably even be semi automated by producing a script to feed
> to gdb which run through all of the options and diffing the result.
>
> If I could have the moon on a stick I would have a tool such as this
> running against the can
On Wed, 4 Dec 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> 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
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.
On 04/12/13 10:28, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 15:11 -0500, 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
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 15:11 -0500, 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
> > 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 rig
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 15:51 +, One Thousand Gnomes 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 i
> > 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.
Sounds to me like the difference between "product" and "re
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 15:11 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 03/12/13 13:41, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:59 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> On 03/12/13 11:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:01 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Mon
On 03/12/13 13:41, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:59 +, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 03/12/13 11:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:01 +, David Vrabel wrote:
On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not c
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:59 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 03/12/13 11:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:01 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> >> On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >>> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> >>> structures should be co
On 03/12/13 11:08, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:01 +, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
>>> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
>>> should only be us
On 03/12/13 12:14, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 03.12.13 at 11:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> struct blkif_request_rw {
>> uint8_tnr_segments; /* number of segments */
>> blkif_vdev_t handle; /* only for read/write requests */
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_X8
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:11 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 03.12.13 at 12:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> >> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __pack
>>> On 03.12.13 at 11:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> struct blkif_request_rw {
> uint8_tnr_segments; /* number of segments */
> blkif_vdev_t handle; /* only for read/write requests */
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - uint32_t _pad1;
On 03/12/13 12:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
>> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
>> should only be used in the backend counterpart of those struct
>>> On 03.12.13 at 12:05, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
>> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
>> should only be used in the backend counterpart of thos
On 03/12/13 12:01, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
>> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
>> should only be used in the backend counterpart of those structures
>> (which n
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:01 +, David Vrabel wrote:
> On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> > structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
> > should only be used in the backend counterpart of those str
@lists.xenproject.org; Boris Ostrovsky
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures
> in public headers
>
> On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> > Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> > structures should be
On Tue, 2013-12-03 at 11:57 +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
> should only be used in the backend counterpart of those structures
> (which needs to handle different ABIs
On 03/12/13 10:57, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
> structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
> should only be used in the backend counterpart of those structures
> (which needs to handle different ABIs).
>
> This was
Using __packed__ on the public interface is not correct, this
structures should be compiled using the native ABI, and __packed__
should only be used in the backend counterpart of those structures
(which needs to handle different ABIs).
This was even worse in the ARM case, where the Linux kernel wa
26 matches
Mail list logo
