> On 24 Nov 2022, at 14:13, Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 24/11/2022 14:03, Edwin Torok wrote: >> >>> On 24 Nov 2022, at 13:43, Andrew Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 24/11/2022 09:03, Edwin Torok wrote: >> Perhaps a compromise between the 2 extremes would be for xenopsd to open and >> have its own xenctrl handle, even if that leads to some code duplication, it >> would at least not rely on an undocumented and unstable internal detail of >> an already unstable ABI. And that would still allow xenopsd to extend >> xenctrl with bindings that are not (yet) present in Xen. >> What do you think? > > Many of these problems will disappear with a stable tools interface. > But yes, in the short term, xcext opening its own handle would > definitely improve things by keeping the two sets of bindings separate. > > ~Andrew
Acked-by: Christian Lindig <[email protected]> I agree with this approach. We want to keep the friction low but not having to coordinate releases and re-compilation. Changes in xenopsd are public for anyone curious and could be upstreamed to Xen later. — C Acked-by: Christian Lindig <[email protected]>
