On 20.11.2019 10:41, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 20.11.2019 09:29, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >> On 19.11.2019 11:23, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 19.11.2019 10:05, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>> On 18.11.2019 16:09, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 18.11.2019 14:39, Alexandru Stefan ISAILA wrote: >>>>>> For this HVMOP_ALTP2M_INTERFACE_VERSION shout be increased. I will leave >>>>>> it to Tamas to decide if we will need a different structure for >>>>>> xen_hvm_altp2m_suppress_ve_multi to keep the compatibility. >>>>> >>>>> Wasn't is that due to the possible guest exposure it was decided >>>>> that the interface version approach was not suitable here, and hence >>>>> it shouldn't be bumped any further? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is correct but there was also requested to add the new opaque field >>>> so I don't know how to have that an still keep the same version. >>> >>> New sub-op? >> >> Wouldn't it be simpler to have a new structure to use for this, >> something like "struct xen_hvm_altp2m_suppress_ve_multi" and then the >> version will be unchanged > > Well, if the original sub-op is to remain entirely untouched, > then yes, sure. I have to admit that in the course of the > discussion it became decreasingly clear whether the original > sub-op also wanted some for of adjustment. >
I agree with the clearness here. So the original sub-op will remain untouched. Thanks, Alex _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
