Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] 32/64-bit hypercall interface revisited

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 25 Apr 2006, at 21:24, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

> > This patch will unconditionally use the 'structural' definition of
> > guest handles for tools and kernels as well as Xen, right? Can 
> > XenLinux
> > for x86/ia64 still build with this patch, without needing a bunch of
> > GET/SET_GUEST_HANDLE changes?
> Sorry, you're right. Attached are three patches: the Xen patch, the
> linux-2.6-merge patch, and the linux-2.6-sparse patch.
This looks basically acceptable except....

Christian suggested providing GET/SET_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(), for use at 
least in the Linux patches. These could be defined in xen.h after 
including arch-foo.h and simply invoke the arch-defined macros.
Alternatively we could simply change the names of all the macros to 
...XEN_GUEST_HANDLE, and use the new names everywhere. I think that 
would be okay as the names aren't that much longer and they aren't used 
*that* often outside header files anyway. It'll make the patch a lot 
bigger, but most of it'll be search-replace. And XEN_GUEST is more 
informative than GUEST.
I don't think there's a need to send a patch for the merge tree -- 
Christian pulls unstable patches into that in a half-automated way.
Also, no need to use GET_GUEST_HANDLE() in the libxc's read_console 
function. Xen will never update the buffer pointer these days -- it 
always fills the buffer from the start. When we eventually kill the 
mlock() crap and implement it properly, I think GET_GUEST_HANDLE() can 
be killed off entirely.
 -- Keir


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