| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] RE: [RFC] tmem ABI change... backwards compatibility unneces
|
To: |
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
[Xen-devel] RE: [RFC] tmem ABI change... backwards compatibility unnecessary? |
|
From: |
Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Thu, 2 Sep 2010 16:19:52 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Cc: |
JeremyFitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, "Xen-Devel \(xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, tmem-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Kurt Hackel <kurt.hackel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Vasiliy G Tolstov <v.tolstov@xxxxxxxxx>, Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx, Chris Mason <chris.mason@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:22:14 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<4C7E87970200007800013C2C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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> |
|
References: |
<1e601c02-1f50-4396-b4d1-e1e21ebf3dc8@default 4C7E87970200007800013C2C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2010 9:04 AM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Cc: stephen.spector@xxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser; JeremyFitzhardinge; Xen-
> Devel (xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx); Chris Mason; Kurt Hackel; tmem-
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Vasiliy G Tolstov
> Subject: Re: [RFC] tmem ABI change... backwards compatibility
> unnecessary?
>
> >>> On 01.09.10 at 16:36, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> > I *think* it is still the case that tmem is experimental
> > and is not used anywhere yet in production. If I am
> > wrong, PLEASE LET ME KNOW ASAP.
>
> Well, if you call us shipping it (default disabled) in a couple of
> releases "not used in production"...
>
> > I am inclined to update the Xen tmem implementation
> > to only support v1 and gracefully fail v0.
>
> If "graceful" really means what it says, this would appear to be
> acceptable irrespective of my note above.
OK, I will submit a patch tomorrow with the following characteristics:
v0 (current) hypervisor + v0 guest: succeeds
v1 (patched) hypervisor + v1 guest: succeeds
v0 (current) hypervisor + v1 guest: fails
v1 (patched) hypervisor + v0 guest: fails
where fails is an xm dmesg message that says "unsupported
spec version" when the guest attempts to create a pool.
And pool creation failure ensures that all further tmem
operations also fail (indeed never even result in a
hypercall for most tmem-enabled kernels).
Thank goodness ABI versioning was built into tmem from
the beginning!
Dan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home