>>> Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com> 04/12/16 6:47 PM >>> >George Dunlap writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] REST MAINTAINERS feedback requested >Was:Re: [PATCH v5 01/28] HYPERCALL_version_op. New hypercall mirroring XENVER_ >>but sane."): >> Well we know which option Andy prefers, but are there other options >> that Andy is not absolutely opposed to? And we don't know anything >> about which option Jan prefers at all, except that it's not #4. > >Let me go a bit further than George. > >It's clear that there are various options, most of which are >tolerable. Buit if I'm trying to help referee a disagreement between >Andrew and Jan I would prefer to be choosing between Andrew's >preferred answer and Jan's preferred answer. > >Jan: AFAICT it's clear that you would still like the current patch >reverted. Can you please say what, if anything, you would like to >replace it with ?
That patch doesn't need replacing by anything. It's the follow-up patch adding support to retrieve the build-id which would need a replacement, and several options have been put on the table. As mentioned before, I'd prefer the variant of the new sub-op getting added to the existing version hypercall, with the needed length argument passed either via a structure element, with the structure pointed to by the 2nd hypercall argument, or with the high bits of the first hypercall argument re-purposed to allow (and for this sub-op require) holding a length. Which of these two sub-options is chosen I don't really care much. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel