Jan Beulich writes ("Re: Stabilising some tools only HVMOPs?"):
> On 18.02.16 at 17:28, <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > Wei Liu writes ("Re: Stabilising some tools only HVMOPs?"):
> >> I think we come to the conclusion that these HVMOPs should be made
> >> stable. And to do so I'm going to introduce a __XEN_TOOLS_STABLE__ macro
> >> for them to distinguish from __XEN_TOOLS__. And then libxendevicemodel
> >> will have -D__XEN_TOOLS_STABLE__ only.
> >>
> >> Does this sound sufficient?
> >
> > It would be better to rename -D__XEN_TOOLS__ too, to
> > -D__XEN_TOOLS_UNSTABLE.
>
> Even if a minor one, this will create a compatibility problem for
> out of tree code including the headers: Their builds will all of
> the sudden break, until they figure they need to go and
> #define this new manifest symbol. Otoh maybe we would
> actually like to break their builds this way, to make them aware
> of the fact.
We're talking here mostly about the unstable API, right ? Well this
is a kind of instability :-).
> In which case maybe __XEN_TOOLS__ should be
> retained for the stable portions?
In principle that might be nice but actually the library split means
they have to change anyway.
Ian.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
