From: Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 1:15 PM > > On 11/10/2024 8:13 PM, Michael Kelley wrote: > > From: Nuno Das Neves <nunodasneves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2024 2:32 PM > >> > >> Switch to using hvhdk.h everywhere in the kernel. This header includes > >> all the new Hyper-V headers in include/hyperv, which form a superset of > >> the definitions found in hyperv-tlfs.h. > >> > >> This makes it easier to add new Hyper-V interfaces without being > >> restricted to those in the TLFS doc (reflected in hyperv-tlfs.h). > >> > >> To be more consistent with the original Hyper-V code, the names of some > >> definitions are changed slightly. Update those where needed. > >> > >> hyperv-tlfs.h is no longer included anywhere - hvhdk.h can serve > >> the same role, but with an easier path for adding new definitions. > > > > Is hyperv-tlfs.h and friends being deleted? If not, the risk is that > > someone adds a new #include of it without realizing that it has been > > superseded by hvhdk.h. > > > > I was hesitant to delete it because I thought someone may still have > a use for a header file that (mostly) reflects the TLFS document and > nothing more. > > But in practical terms, this patchset makes it much more difficult to > use because all the helper code (i.e. mshyperv.h) now uses hvhdk.h. > So, maybe there is no point keeping it. > > > Note also that this patch does not apply cleanly to 6.12 rc's, or to > > current linux-next trees. There's an unrelated #include added to > > arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h that causes a merge failure > > in that file. > > > > I've been developing this series based on hyperv-next. Should I be > basing it on linux-next? > Yes, base it on linux-next. hyperv-next was last sync'ed with upstream at 6.11-rc4 back in mid-August, so it's pretty far out-of-date. Wei will need to sync it before picking up any new patches. Michael
