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: Hypercall number assignment convension (was Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PAT

On 24 Apr 2006, at 02:53, Isaku Yamahata wrote:

I think Rusty's xen share also had a similar problem caused by
the hypercall number conflict.
Xen/ia64 with virtual physical model also needs a hypercall number
for its own use.
Currently it large enough (=256) that it is unlikly to be used by xen/x86.

Is there any convension about how to take hypercall number?
At least hypercall numbers for arch-specific purpose and
experimental purpose should be defined.

The list of __HYPERVISOR_* defines in public/xen.h in the main xen repository is the canonical place. For hypercalls in our tree, simply grabbing the next number in sequence usually makes sense. I'm not sure whether having structure to the hypercall numbers makes sense (e.g., a range for arch-specific usage) -- if so then maybe allocating from 64 upwards would make sense.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>