Re: [Xen-devel] Re: user/hypervisor address space solution

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 15, 2006, at 5:23 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> Should be called get_guest/put_guest/copy_from_guest/copy_to_guest. 
> Better names, and the arch-specific old functions can still keep their 
> old names.
I don't think I understood your full meaning before, but I'm with you 
now. get/put_user() will still exist on x86 and mean virtual addresses 
(kernel or user). The new get/put_guest_offset() implementations will 
be equivalent.
PowerPC will implement get/put_guest_offset(), but will not implement 
get/put_user() at all. If those latter calls do make their way into 
common code (after the PPC code has been merged), every PPC build in 
the regression test suite will fail, so the patch will be flagged as 
bad and not committed.
This sounds fine to me, other than that bit about confusing the word 
"user" to mean "virtual" (since it could of course be a kernel address 
as well).
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


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