On 16.11.2022 19:14, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 15/11/2022 08:49, Jan Beulich wrote: >> On 15.11.2022 01:35, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> I was really hoping to avoid this, but its now too late in the 4.17 freeze >>> and >>> we still don't have working fixes. >>> >>> The in-Xen calculations for assistance capabilities are buggy. For the >>> avoidance of doubt, the original intention was to be able to control every >>> aspect of a APIC acceleration so we could comprehensively test Xen's >>> support, >>> as it has proved to be buggy time and time again. >>> >>> Even after a protracted discussion on what the new API ought to mean, >>> attempts >>> to apply it to the existing logic have been unsuccessful, proving that the >>> API/ABI is too complicated for most people to reason about. >> Like Roger I'm still having trouble seeing what ABI you're talking >> about here. Yes, there are internal handling issues, but that's hardly >> "ABI". And as Roger indicated before, anything domctl/sysctl isn't >> stable anyway. > > It absolutely is stable when it it extends beyond domctl/sysctl into the > libxl API, two different xl config files, and Xen command line (for PVH > dom0). > > domctl/sysctl are the very least of the problem.
Which still leaves open which "ABI" you've been referring to. As Roger and I have said - it doesn't look as if we couldn't change the meaning we internally assign to what libxl has started to expose (and what the Xen command line option simply mirrors). Jan
