WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xc: deal with xen/evtchn and xen/gntdev device n

To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xc: deal with xen/evtchn and xen/gntdev device names
From: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:31:16 +0100
Cc: Bastian Blank <waldi@xxxxxxxxxx>, Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Thu, 03 Jun 2010 01:32:03 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4C06822A.8000702@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Citrix Systems, Inc.
References: <4C00690B.2020303@xxxxxxxx> <1275379012.24218.20337.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C0536BF.7070605@xxxxxxxx> <1275470944.24218.23601.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4C06822A.8000702@xxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2010-06-02 at 17:09 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 06/02/2010 02:29 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:35 +0100, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > I don't think we need a flag day. It seems like we already ship a udev
> > rule (in tools/hotplug/Linux/xen-backend.rules) which correctly
> > created /dev/xen/evtchn with the current kernel and which is apparently
> > unnecessary (but harmless) with the proposed kernel change.
> >   
> 
> My main concern is that an old libxc will screw anyone with new kernel
> and udev.

Is it any more likely to screw them with a new kernel than with an old
one?

If so I think that's an argument for propagating the removal of this
functionality into stable trees sooner rather than later rather than
papering over the craziness for even longer.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel