>>> On 17.03.15 at 14:05, <lars.kurth....@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 17 Mar 2015, at 11:40, Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote: >> I think the main things which is missing is some decision as to the the >> point at which we would consider the ABI for a PV protocol fixed, i.e. >> to be maintained in a backwards compatible manner from then on. > > What do we do with new APIs in such situations? It would appear that there > is some commonality in how we would handle a protocols and an API. I am > assuming APIs such as new hypercalls don't immediately become fixed and > backwards compatible.
New hypercalls become set in stone as soon as they appear in any released version, unless specifically marked as experimental or alike. The situation is quite different for a protocol specification like this: Here we talk about something where no code would live in xen.git at all, only the abstract description. Hence its stability can't usefully be tied to any released Xen version. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
