RE: Hypercall number assignment convension (was Re: [Xen-devel] Re:[PATCH]: kexec: framework and i386)

["Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx>]

>From: Isaku Yamahata
>Sent: 2006年4月26日 10:10
>
>On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:32:09AM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>Actually xen/ia64 requires only one hypercall number for now.
>I attached the patches to take one.
>I'm not sure what name you prefer, so I attached two patches.
>Please apply which you prefer. (or invent whatever name you like.)
>
>--

I prefer to the first one. However not the current 
__HYPERVISOR_arch_specific_0, *_1, *_2, ..., how about just call 
it as __HYPERVISOR_arch_specific_ops which contains another 
namespace defined by different architecture seperately?

Thanks,
Kevin

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel