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/
Home Products Support Community News


[Xen-devel] Re: [rfc] [patch] "frame number" size in hypercall ABI

To: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [rfc] [patch] "frame number" size in hypercall ABI
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:24:44 +0100
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 00:28:33 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1145387850.26081.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <E1FUgaX-000183-00@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1145387850.26081.54.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On 18 Apr 2006, at 20:17, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

I would like to avoid introducing new dom0_ops. If an invasive change
is only changing longs into an equivalent typedef'ed long (on x86/ia64)
then it's not hard to reason that it's correct. If it also causes
changes in users of libxc then well, that's a shame, but it's not
fixed by introducing a new dom0_op unless you duplicate every end user
for the ppc architecture too. :-)

OK, is this what you're looking for? Compile-tested only (on x86-32; I
haven't yet provided frameno_t in other arch-*.h).

I also haven't converted Xen itself to use frameno_t except where
absolutely necessary. It isn't required to solve my immediate problem...

I think the patch looks okay in principle, except I notice a couple of 'framno_t' misspellings. I think 'pfn_t' would be more in keeping with the Xen naming scheme for arbitrary page frame numbers, but perhaps that name is a bit unnecessarily cryptic. What is the immediate problem you're needing to solve?

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list