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

[Horms <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 24, 2006 at 08:32:09AM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> 
> On 24 Apr 2006, at 02:53, Isaku Yamahata wrote:
> 
> >I think Rusty's xen share also had a similar problem caused by
> >the hypercall number conflict.
> >Xen/ia64 with virtual physical model also needs a hypercall number
> >for its own use.
> >Currently it large enough (=256) that it is unlikly to be used by 
> >xen/x86.
> >
> >Is there any convension about how to take hypercall number?
> >At least hypercall numbers for arch-specific purpose and
> >experimental purpose should be defined.
> 
> The list of __HYPERVISOR_* defines in public/xen.h in the main xen 
> repository is the canonical place. For hypercalls in our tree, simply 
> grabbing the next number in sequence usually makes sense. I'm not sure 
> whether having structure to the hypercall numbers makes sense (e.g., a 
> range for arch-specific usage) -- if so then maybe allocating from 64 
> upwards would make sense.

There is a small problem, in that for x86_32 at least the hypercall
table is currently full with 32 entries (well, the last time I checked
anyway), and my attempts to extend it were futile. Could you give me
some advice on how to increase its size?

-- 
Horms

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