From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: Re: APIC rework Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:12:58 -0800 Message-ID: <4B0230DA.6050604@goop.org> References: <4AFDF254.7070407@goop.org> <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC201CD3201A3@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> <4B019C00.2070404@goop.org> <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC201CD320368@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <706158FABBBA044BAD4FE898A02E4BC201CD320368@pdsmsx503.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Zhang, Xiantao" Cc: Xen-devel , "Han, Weidong" , Keir Fraser , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 11/16/09 19:13, Zhang, Xiantao wrote: > Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: >> Is there any way for the dom0 kernel to tell whether the hypervisor is >> implementing the new ABI, so it can choose how to set up interrupts. >> >> MAP_COMPAT_BIT doesn't seem like a very good name, because it implies >> that setting it reverts to "compatible" behaviour. I assume that >> leaving it clear enables the historical behaviour and setting it >> enables the new one (since old kernels won't be setting it). >> > Maybe better change to MAP_NEW_ABI_BIT ? Since the hypervisor patch didn't change old code path after introducing this bit, so it is very easy and safe to backport to xen-3.4-testing tree, and make new dom0 be able to run top of it. :) > Better to give it a name which actually describes what it means/does. NEW_ABI isn't very descriptive when it becomes *the* ABI (and what happens when there's a newer one?). J > Xiantao >