 Home |
Products |
Support |
Community |
News |
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] include/xen/xencomm.h's copy_field_{to, from}_guest() (PPC,
| To: | <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | [Xen-devel] include/xen/xencomm.h's copy_field_{to, from}_guest() (PPC, IA64) |
| From: | "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Thu, 05 Apr 2007 12:16:38 +0100 |
| Delivery-date: | Thu, 05 Apr 2007 04:14:42 -0700 |
| Envelope-to: | www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| 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 |
While the header is only being used by PPC, aren't these two macros broken, i.e. shouldn't the match the ia64 variants in using the structure base address from the handle and passing just _off as last argument to xencomm_copy_...()? Also, what is the reason for ia64 to cook its own rather than including the shared one? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux/x86-64: fix unwind information, Keir Fraser |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] linux/x86-64: fix unwind information, Jan Beulich |
| Previous by Thread: | [Xen-devel] SHype/ACM in xen3.0.4, Praveen Kushwaha |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [Xen-devel] include/xen/xencomm.h's copy_field_{to, from}_guest() (PPC, IA64), Isaku Yamahata |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
