From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751535Ab3LKQYE (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:24:04 -0500 Received: from smtp02.citrix.com ([66.165.176.63]:9044 "EHLO SMTP02.CITRIX.COM" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750904Ab3LKQYC (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:24:02 -0500 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,872,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="80957930" Message-ID: <52A8919E.2000805@citrix.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:23:58 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Roger_Pau_Monn=E9?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Stefano Stabellini , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk CC: Ian Campbell , David Vrabel , Julien Grall , , , Boris Ostrovsky Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] xen-block: correctly define structures in public headers References: <1386068254-1413-1-git-send-email-roger.pau@citrix.com> <529DBA07.6090108@citrix.com> <1386068884.13256.9.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <529DC7BA.7080506@citrix.com> <1386078108.13256.30.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <529DF4A0.50103@citrix.com> <1386083821.13256.42.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com> <20131203201135.GA14243@phenom.dumpdata.com> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DLP: MIA1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 11/12/13 17:18, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Tue, 3 Dec 2013, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>>> If Konrad and Boris agree that breaking the kernel's ABI in this way is >>>> acceptable in this specific case, I'll defer to them. >>> >>> My opinion as Xen on ARM hypervisor maintainer is that this is the right >>> thing to do in this case. >> >> Heh. If somebody can guarantee me that (by testing the right variants and >> mentioning this in the git commit) that this does not break x86, then >> I am fine. >> >> And by 'break x86' I mean that this combination works: >> 32-bit domU on 64-bit dom0 >> 64-bit domU on 32-bit dom0 >> >> And perhaps also the obvious: >> 64-bit domU on 64-bit dom0 >> 32-bit domU on 32-bit dom0 >> >> Since the xen-blkback has its own version of the structs there is no >> need to change change newer and older version of it. >> >> As long as that works I am OK sticking it in. >> >> I think from the ARM perspective it is still in 'experimental' phase >> so anything goes to make it work under ARM. > > > Roger, can you please test this patch on x86 as suggested by Konrad and > confirm that it doesn't break anything? This is not the right patch, the right one is the one posted by Julien: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=138608528604584&w=2