Hi Paul,
On 15/04/2020 09:50, Paul Durrant wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Sent: 15 April 2020 09:45
To: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; George Dunlap
<george.dun...@citrix.com>; Ian Jackson
<ian.jack...@eu.citrix.com>; Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Stefano Stabellini
<sstabell...@kernel.org>; Wei Liu <w...@xen.org>; Paul Durrant <p...@xen.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] xenoprof: XSA-313 follow-up
Patch 1 was considered to become part of the XSA, but it was then
decided against. The other two are a little bit of cleanup, albeit
there's certainly far more room for tidying. Yet then again Paul,
in his mail from Mar 13, was asking whether we shouldn't drop
xenoprof altogether, at which point cleaning up the code would be
wasted effort.
That's still my opinion. This is a large chunk of (only passively maintained)
code which I think is of very limited value (since it relates to an old tool,
and it only works for PV domains).
While there are no active user we are aware of, this is an example on
how to implement a profiler backend with Xen. So I would agree with
Andrew here.
IIRC, the reason behind your request is it makes difficult for your
xenheap work. Am I correct? If so, do you have a thread explaining the
issues?
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
