Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: update machine_to_phys_order on resume

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com>]

>>> On 15.07.11 at 20:23, Keir Fraser <keir.xen@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15/07/2011 18:30, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> 
>> Actually, one more thought: What's the purpose of this hypercall if
>> it is set in stone what values it ought to return? Isn't a guest using
>> it (supposed to be) advertising that it can deal with the values being
>> variable (and it was just overlooked so far that this doesn't only
>> include varying values from boot to boot, but also migration)? Or in
>> other words, if we found a need to relocate the M2P table or grow
>> its static maximum size, it would be impossible to migrate guests
>> from an old to a new hypervisor.
> 
> Fair point. There has to be a static fallback set of return values for old
> guests.

Hmm, in my reading the two sentences sort of contradict each other.
That is, I'm not certain what route we want to go here: Keep things
the way they are after 23706:3dd399873c9e, and introduce a
completely new discovery mechanism if we find it necessary to change
the M2P table's location and/or size, including a mechanism for a guest
to announce it's capable of dealing with that? If so, I think we ought
to add a comment to the hypercall implementation documenting that
its return values must not be changed (and why).

Jan