From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Roman Kagan Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/15] hyperv: move VMBus connection ids to uapi Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2017 11:58:26 +0300 Message-ID: <20170109085826.GC2128@rkaganb.sw.ru> References: <20161221154348.GA31401@infradead.org> <20161221095049.6fdc3145@xeon-e3> <20161221175836.GA8846@infradead.org> <20161221100247.69a4049b@xeon-e3> <20161228170943.GB14702@rkaganb.sw.ru> <64526782-26fb-0012-f467-b6e5a1ab6357@redhat.com> <20170109083222.GB2128@rkaganb.sw.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , Haiyang Zhang , "x86@kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "devel@linuxdriverproject.org" , Ingo Molnar , "Denis V . Lunev" , Paolo Bonzini , Thomas Gleixner To: Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: driverdev-devel-bounces@linuxdriverproject.org Sender: "devel" List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 12:40:48AM -0800, hpa@zytor.com wrote: > On January 9, 2017 12:32:23 AM PST, Roman Kagan wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 02, 2017 at 09:19:57AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> On 28/12/2016 18:09, Roman Kagan wrote: > >> > Am I correct assuming that QEMU is currently the only user of > >> > arch/x86/include/uapi/asm/hyperv.h? > >> > > >> > Then I think we're fine withdrawing it from uapi as a whole and > >letting > >> > QEMU pull it in through its header-harvesting scripts (as does now > >> > anyway). This would lift all licensing and longterm API stability > >> > expectations. > >> > >> Actually, QEMU's header-harvesting scripts use uapi/ headers > >> exclusively, since they are built on "make headers_install". > >> > >> The extra cleanups that QEMU does on top are to allow compilation of > >the > >> headers on non-Linux machines. They don't really do much more than > >> changing Linux (linux/types.h) integer types to the C99 (stdint.h) > >> equivalents. > > > >Ouch, I stand corrected. > > > >So what should we do with it then? I'm sorta lost... > > > >We certainly can give it up and live with a private copy of the > >definitions in the QEMU tree but that doesn't sound optimal in any > >sense. > > > >Thanks, > >Roman. > > Why do that through header mangling rather than typedef? Sorry for not being clear, I actually asked what to do with the Hyper-V and VMBus protocol definitions. The typedef vs mangling is a different matter; I guess mangling was chosen to avoid conflicts with system-provided definitions on non-Linux systems, but I think Paolo can tell more. Roman.