I think the right thing is indeed to revert 72a9b186292 (and
therefore da72ff5bfcb02). Any objections?
For the end result: depends. Is there a real error or not?
KarimAllah wrote that his concerns are of a theoretical nature as
xen_strict_xenbus_quirk() would mask the problem. OTOH he tells us
a 4.9 kernel wouldn't even boot on Xen < 4.0. What is correct here?
Judged by 'BUG_ON(!xen_feature(XENFEAT_hvm_callback_vector))' in
xen_hvm_guest_init() this can't boot on 3.4.
For just reverting the two commits: yes, as there would be conflicts
with already applied patches, especially the pv isolation patches by
Vitaly and pvh v1 removal.
So in case we need a revert I'd ask KarimAllah to send a fixup patch
restoring the state before 72a9b186292 while respecting the new
structure to be found on the for-linus-4.12 branch of xen/tip.
Stable trees (4.9 and 4.10) need a pure revert. 4.11 indeed requires
some extra work (and 4.12 is even more involved).
-boris
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
