Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xen/public: arm: Rework __guest_handle_param*

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 02/11/15 15:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 15:24 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 02/11/15 15:19, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> __guest_handle_param is used to represent a guest pointer stored pass
>>>> as
>>>> an hypercall parameters. They are the same size as the native
>>>> register
>>>> for the architecture. It will be 32-bit on ARM32 and 64-bit on ARM64.
>>>>
>>>> As the __guest_handle_param will always be the size of a native
>>>> pointer, there is no need to have a union with an unsigned long.
>>>>
>>>> Note that unsigned long may be not equivalent to the size of a
>>>> pointer
>>>> on ARM64. It depends whether the software is build using the LP64 or
>>>> LLP64 data model. The size of an unsigned long in the latter will be
>>>> 32-bit.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Obviously this is going to break set_xen_guest_handle_raw. I don't
>>> think
>>> this cannot be committed separately to the change to
>>> set_xen_guest_handle_raw.
>>
>> Well, all the usage of set_xen_guest_handle_raw within the hypervisor
>> are in compat and kexec which is not built for ARM.
> 
> Shall we drop it from ARM then?

No. Sorry it wasn't clear on my previous mail, I was only speaking about
the usage of set_xen_guest_handle_raw on a XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM.

set_xen_guest_handle_raw is used by the guest/toolstack to set a pointer
in a structure. All those usages are done with a GUEST_HANDLE and not a
GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall

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