Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 05/11] tmem: Move TMEM_CONTROL subop of tmem hypercall to sysctl.

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.08.15 at 20:53, <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @@ -68,7 +69,11 @@ long do_sysctl(XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_sysctl_t) 
> u_sysctl)
>      case XEN_SYSCTL_tbuf_op:
>          ret = tb_control(&op->u.tbuf_op);
>          break;
> -    
> +
> +    case XEN_SYSCTL_tmem_op:
> +        ret = tmem_control(&op->u.tmem_op);
> +        break;
> +
>      case XEN_SYSCTL_sched_id:

Perhaps it was on a different part of the patch (or series), but ISTR
having pointed out strange placement within a switch() statement
on v2 already. This one logically also rather belongs at the end (the
case statements at least "try" to be sorted numerically).

> +struct xen_sysctl_tmem_op {
> +    uint32_t cmd;       /* IN: XEN_SYSCTL_TMEM_OP_* . */
> +    int32_t pool_id;    /* IN: 0 by default unless _SAVE_*, RESTORE_* .*/
> +    uint32_t cli_id;    /* IN: client id, 0 for 
> XEN_SYSCTL_TMEM_QUERY_FREEABLE_MB
> +                           for all others can be the domain id or
> +                           XEN_SYSCTL_TMEM_OP_ALL_CLIENTS for all. */
> +    uint32_t arg1;      /* IN: If not applicable to command use 0. */
> +    uint32_t arg2;      /* IN: If not applicable to command use 0. */
> +    uint32_t pad;       /* Padding so structure is the same under 32 and 64. 
> */
> +    uint64_t oid[3];    /* IN: If not applicable to command use 0. */

Since this is an array, I'd generally prefer plural (0s) in the comment,
but I think a later patch is going to alter this again anyway.

With at least the earlier comment addressed, hypervisor side
Acked-by: Jen Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>

Jan


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