On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:00:12AM +0000, Horms wrote:
> 8604:a51fcb5de470 introduced a discrepancy between the declaration
> and definition of xc_linux_save(). In particular the argument for
> the suspend pointer to function was null in one and int in the other.
> On inspection, int seemed to be correct, so I went with this.
> I also fixed up a few other cosmetic discrepancies.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks. I've applied this with s/fd_fd/io_fd, which is what I presume you
meant.
Ewan.
>
> diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c
> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006
> @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@
> }
>
> int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int io_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t
> max_iters,
> - uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags, int (*suspend)(void))
> + uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */,
> + int (*suspend)(int domid))
> {
> PERROR("xc_linux_save not implemented\n");
> return -1;
> diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xenguest.h
> --- a/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006
> @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
> * @parm dom the id of the domain
> * @return 0 on success, -1 on failure
> */
> -int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
> +int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t
> max_iters,
> uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */,
> - int (*suspend)(int));
> + int (*suspend)(int domid));
>
>
> /**
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home