On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 09:42:09AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > On 04.05.2021 17:34, Roger Pau Monné wrote: > > On Mon, May 03, 2021 at 01:09:41PM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote: > >> On 30.04.2021 17:52, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > >>> @@ -1086,3 +1075,42 @@ int xc_cpu_policy_calc_compatible(xc_interface > >>> *xch, > >>> > >>> return rc; > >>> } > >>> + > >>> +int xc_cpu_policy_make_compatible(xc_interface *xch, xc_cpu_policy_t > >>> policy, > >>> + bool hvm) > >> > >> I'm concerned of the naming, and in particular the two very different > >> meanings of "compatible" for xc_cpu_policy_calc_compatible() and this > >> new one. I'm afraid I don't have a good suggestion though, short of > >> making the name even longer and inserting "backwards". > > > > Would xc_cpu_policy_make_compat_412 be acceptable? > > > > That's the more concise one I can think of. > > Hmm, maybe (perhaps with an underscore inserted between 4 and 12). Yet > (sorry) a comment in the function says "since Xen 4.13", which includes > changes that have happened later. Therefore it's not really clear to me > whether the function really _only_ deals with the 4.12 / 4.13 boundary.
It should deal with any changes in the default cpuid policy that happened after (and not including) Xen 4.12. So resulting policy is compatible with the behaviour that Xen 4.12 had. Any changes made in Xen 4.13 and further versions should be accounted for here. Thanks, Roger.
