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] Re: [PATCH] [LIBXC] add architecture-specific parameter

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] [LIBXC] add architecture-specific parameter to xc_linux_build()
From: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 11:16:42 +0100
Cc: xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel <xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Wed, 09 Aug 2006 03:17:06 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C0FF6FC5.AE4%Keir.Fraser@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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Aca7mgdkRgKNJCeNEduEQwAKle7CWAAAuFOZ
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] [LIBXC] add architecture-specific parameter to xc_linux_build()
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/

On 9/8/06 10:56 am, "Keir Fraser" <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> Keir, this patch applies on top of the xc.c whitespace patch I just
>> sent, and also on top of the contents of xenppc-unstable-merge.hg
>> (because we've moved xc_ppc_linux_build.c into its own directory). We
>> also have a couple important fixes in there anyways, so now would be a
>> good time to pull. :)
> The diffstat doesn't correspond to the patch. Can I ignore the diffstat?

Actually I'm not sure about this approach at all. Couldn't specifying the
open firmware tree be done separately from the build (e.g., just after)?
Maybe hooked off the new proposed 'platform object' in xend. Xc_linux_build
is really ugly enough already: I think in future we would like to split
xc_linux_build up into smaller API functions, even for x86, and that the
patch you propose goes in the opposite direction to this.

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list