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


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

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] "frame number" size in hypercall ABI
From: Joe Bonasera <joe.bonasera@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:14:46 -0700
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:15:18 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <c40345bdeb568f8a56c9fded73d5598c@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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: <E1FWBAp-0008KG-7d@host-192-168-0-1-bcn-london> <444657FE.2020401@xxxxxxx> <fcb6a2a151d29565b02596432d44032c@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1145465055.9435.10.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <c40345bdeb568f8a56c9fded73d5598c@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; SunOS i86pc; en-US; rv:1.7) Gecko/20060307
Keir Fraser wrote:

On 19 Apr 2006, at 17:44, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

"xen_frameno_t" then?

xen_pfn_t? Definitely won't conflict with anyone, and I prefer 'pfn' to 'frameno' as it's more consistent with other names we have in the interface.

why not xen_mfn_t? Is "p" here for "page" or "physical"? using
"m" makes it a bit more explicit.

Attached is the updated patch, with typos fixed and a couple other
corrections. I've also added the type to arch-x86_64.h and arch-ia64.h,
so I think the patch is ready to be applied.

What about the Linux kernel -- shouldn't that be changed too? At least where it handles arrays of longs passed to memory_op()?

Inside Xen, does shadow.h really need changing at all? Once entries are unpacked from an array by a hypercall they could just be passed round as longs, right?

Sorry about the to'ing-and-fro'ing but we need to make sure interface changes are complete and correct and this one is inevitably pretty far-reaching.

  -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list