From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ian Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/27] docs: Libxl migration v2 stream specification Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2015 14:58:34 +0100 Message-ID: <1436363914.23508.44.camel@citrix.com> References: <1434375880-30914-1-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1434375880-30914-11-git-send-email-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> <1434463086.13744.173.camel@citrix.com> <559D2A80.3040607@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <559D2A80.3040607@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: Wei Liu , Yang Hongyang , Ian Jackson , Xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 14:49 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 16/06/2015 14:58, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-06-15 at 14:44 +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: > >> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper > >> +EMULATOR\_CONTEXT > >> +---------------- > >> + > >> +A context blob for a specific emulator associated with the domain. > >> + > >> + 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 octet > >> + +------------------------+------------------------+ > >> + | emulator_id | index | > >> + +------------------------+------------------------+ > >> + | emulator_ctx | > >> + ... > >> + +-------------------------------------------------+ > >> + > >> +-------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> +Field Description > >> +------------ --------------------------------------------------- > >> +emulator_id 0x00000000: Unknown (In the case of a legacy stream) > >> + > >> + 0x00000001: Qemu Traditional > >> + > >> + 0x00000002: Qemu Upstream > >> + > >> + 0x00000003 - 0xFFFFFFFF: Reserved for future emulators. > > Would it be useful for future proofing to carve out some space for a > > per-emulator version field too? > > What would that be useful for? It is the emulators problem/fault if it > can't read the blob it is given. > > Superficially, I can see why the field would be nice for debugging > purposes, but not all emulators will have a consistent version scheme, > and we only install a single version of each emulator. All I can see > happening is libxl starting to guess about emulator/blob compatibility, > which is absolutely not its place to do. Good point (I also can't quite remember what I thought this for). > > Otherwise LGTM. > > > > One thought, it might be useful (here or elsewhere) to have an explicit > > overview of the expected control flow (as in the ownership of the fd, > > and/or nesting of the layers as you prefer to think about it) between > > libxc, libxl and the next layer (i.e. xl). > > I will see what I can do, but the freeze is very imminent. Indeed, don't let this distract you.