Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] x86/hvm: Add per-vcpu evtchn upcalls

[Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Beulich [mailto:JBeulich@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: 16 January 2015 11:59
> To: Andrew Cooper; Paul Durrant; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Vrabel; Keir (Xen.org)
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] x86/hvm: Add per-vcpu evtchn upcalls
> 
> >>> On 16.01.15 at 12:07, <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> From: Andrew Cooper
> >> On 16/01/15 10:09, Paul Durrant wrote:
> >> > +#define HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector 23
> >> > +struct xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector {
> >> > +    uint32_t vcpu;
> >> > +    uint8_t vector;
> >> > +};
> >> > +typedef struct xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector
> >> xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t;
> >> >
> +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t);
> >>
> >> I think you should remove "set" from the structure name.  Who knows -
> >> someone might want to implement a get hypercall in the future.
> >>
> >
> > I didn't want to make any assumption about future use of the structure and
> > followed the convention of tying the name to the hypercall. I'm happy to
> make
> > the name more generic if anyone else also thinks that's a good idea.
> 
> I think this is a good idea, and I can take care of the name change
> while committing (unless other reasons for another round should
> show up).
> 

Thanks :-)

  Paul

> Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel