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

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 26 Apr 2006, at 03:34, Tian, Kevin wrote:

> 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?
Sometimes you might want a fast hypercall that doesn't have two levels 
of demultiplexing, or where the register/stack parameters are carefully 
crafted and would not fit with an ioctl()-style hypercall (see x86's 
IRET hypercall).
How about reserving 8 or 16 arch-specific hypercalls up front?
#define __HYPERVISOR_arch_0  32
 ...
#define __HYPERVISOR_arch_7  39

We could give a bit of breathing space to the non-arch range by 
starting __HYPERVISOR_arch_* at. e.g., 40 or 48?
 -- Keir


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