On Wed, 2006-04-19 at 19:25 +0100, 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
Well technically the PFN list is actually a list of MFNs, right? I think
both PFNs and MFNs are passed across this interface... would you want
separate types for those?
> > 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()?
In theory yes. I've been trying to limit myself to changes that I
absolutely need. A typical ppc64 system has 32-bit userland, 64-bit
kernel, 64-bit hypervisor, so practically speaking the kernel doesn't
need to change.
> 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?
Right, it looks like that part of the patch is bogus. I removed the
shadow.h changes; I can resubmit, or I can wait to see if other issues
> 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
IBM Linux Technology Center
Xen-devel mailing list