On 07/10/2018 11:32 AM, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH] hvm/altp2m: Clarify the proper way to
> extend the altp2m interface"):
>> On 07/10/2018 11:01 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Or 2a: Include a comment saying the 'internal' interface hasn't been
>> evaluated for safety, and don't bother blacklisting new ops until such
>> an evaluation has been made.
>
> We should have a way of remembering the design intent, even if it
> hasn't been audited.
>
> SUPPORT.md can deal with the possible problem of people thinking the
> non-blacklisted items are fully ready for use.
I think SUPPORT.md should primarily be for end users to determine
whether they should use an interface or not. A technical discussion
about exactly to what degree an interface has (or hasn't) been vetted is
more towards a developer who may be looking to get things into a
supported state, and so should probably be in the code somewhere.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
