On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 07:54:11PM +0000, KY Srinivasan wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stephen Hemminger [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:03 AM > > To: Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> > > Cc: Paolo Bonzini <[email protected]>; Roman Kagan > > <[email protected]>; Radim Krčmář <[email protected]>; KY > > Srinivasan <[email protected]>; Vitaly Kuznetsov > > <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Denis V . Lunev > > <[email protected]>; Haiyang Zhang <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; [email protected]; Ingo Molnar > > <[email protected]>; H. Peter Anvin <[email protected]>; > > [email protected]; Thomas Gleixner <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] hyperv: move VMBus connection ids to uapi > > > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2016 09:58:36 -0800 > > Christoph Hellwig <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2016 at 09:50:49AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > > Lastly, there is licensing issues on headers. It would be good to have > > > > any > > > > userspace ABI headers licensed with a more liberal license so that BSD > > and DPDK drivers > > > > could use them directly. Right now each one reinvents. > > > > > > Microsoft could easily solves this problem by offering a suitably > > > liberally licensed header documenting the full HyperV guest protocol > > > that Linux and other projects could use. > > > > The issue is if same header file mixes kernel and userspace API stuff. > > > > Once the files are arranged right, I will submit trivial change to comments > > to indicate the liberal licensing of userspace API headers. > > Let us take this one step at a time. I know for a fact that not all the guest > host > protocols on Hyper-V are guaranteed to be stable. Some of the protocols are > part of > the published MSFT standards such RNDIS and these obviously are guaranteed to > be > stable. For the rest it is less clear. The fact that we need to ensure > compatibility of existing > Windows guests tells me that any host side changes will be versioned and the > hosts will always > support older guests. > > I would like to minimize what we include in the uapi header; especially when > MSFT has made no guarantees > with regards how they may be evolved. I will also work on getting some > clarity on both stability and > under what license we would expose the uapi header.
Am I correct assuming that QEMU is currently the only user of arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h? Then I think we're fine withdrawing it from uapi as a whole and letting QEMU pull it in through its header-harvesting scripts (as does now anyway). This would lift all licensing and longterm API stability expectations. Roman. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list [email protected] http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
