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 Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:32:09AM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> 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.

There is a small problem, in that for x86_32 at least the hypercall
table is currently full with 32 entries (well, the last time I checked
anyway), and my attempts to extend it were futile. Could you give me
some advice on how to increase its size?


Xen-devel mailing list