WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add dm-userspace to the Xen kernel

To: Bastian Blank <bastian@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add dm-userspace to the Xen kernel
From: Dan Smith <danms@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:52:06 -0700
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 07:50:36 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <m3pshica0w.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060610204043.GA16468@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Gnus/5.110006 (No Gnus v0.6) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux)
BB> 1. this struct differs from the old patches published on dm-devel
BB> and lkml?

I added an 'id' field, which contains a unique integer for each
request, which helps me to match up the response to the correct item
in the kernel queue.  Previously, I was matching based on the original
block, which has the potential to be wrong if there are two requests
on the queue for the same block (i.e. one for a read mapping and one
for a write mapping).  I thought the id would be easier.

BB> 2. Why do you use a construct which gives different allignment on
BB> i386 and x86_64? (i386 alligns 64bit ints on 32bit, x86_64 on
BB> 64bit

I assume you mean because there are an odd number of 32-bit fields, is
that correct?  The answer to the question is: "because I haven't given
much thought to x86_64 issues yet" :).  This week, I plan to test on
x86_64, so I can submit another patch with resolutions to any other
x86_64 issues that may be present, if it's likely to be accepted.

-- 
Dan Smith
IBM Linux Technology Center
Open Hypervisor Team
email: danms@xxxxxxxxxx

Attachment: pgp0LjQYTNNrl.pgp
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel