[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same
8604:a51fcb5de470 introduced a discrepancy between the declaration and definition of xc_linux_save(). In particular the argument for the suspend pointer to function was null in one and int in the other. On inspection, int seemed to be correct, so I went with this. I also fixed up a few other cosmetic discrepancies. Signed-Off-By: Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c --- a/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006 +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006 @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@ } int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int io_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters, - uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags, int (*suspend)(void)) + uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */, + int (*suspend)(int domid)) { PERROR("xc_linux_save not implemented\n"); return -1; diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xenguest.h --- a/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006 +++ b/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006 @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ * @parm dom the id of the domain * @return 0 on success, -1 on failure */ -int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters, +int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters, uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */, - int (*suspend)(int)); + int (*suspend)(int domid)); /** _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |