On 19/12/2019 11:06, Durrant, Paul wrote: >> It is not fair or reasonable to include extra headroom in a "oh dear we >> screwed up - will the community be kind enough to help us work around >> our ABI problems" scenario. >> > I would have thought all the pain you went through to keep XenServer going > with its non-upstreamed hypercall numbers would have made you a little more > sympathetic to dealing with past mistakes.
I could object to the principle of the patch, if you'd prefer :) If you recall for the legacy window PV driver ABI breakages, I didn't actually reserve any numbers upstream in the end. All compatibility was handled locally. >> For now, I'd just leave it as a comment, and strictly only covering the >> ones you have used. There is no need to actually bump the structure >> sizes in xen for now - simply that the ones you have currently used >> don't get allocated for something different in the future. >> > Ok, we can defer actually bumping HVM_SAVE_CODE_MAX, but it's almost certain > to happen eventually. That's fine. ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
