[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Share the IO_APIC_route_entry with iosapic

To: "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx>, "'xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx>
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 10:00:54 +0100
Cc:
Delivery-date: Thu, 09 Oct 2008 02:01:20 -0700
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
Thread-index: AckgiO9bcpoCwP60QhSSqGPREIpSFQAkJdlgAAYECKAABwJS6wG/ibPAAADWZOQAAHRlMAAAsQN/AGTTN6AAAaGDnQ==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Share the IO_APIC_route_entry with iosapic



On 9/10/08 09:27, "Cui, Dexuan" <dexuan.cui@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> A better idea may be:
> we duplicate the IO_APIC_route_entry structure in a header under
> drivers/passthrough/ and rename it to IO_xAPIC_route_entry -- this new name
> will only be used by files in drivers/passthrough/.
> This requires the least changes and avoids confusion.
> How do you like this?

Sounds okay.

 -- Keir



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

References:
- [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Share the IO_APIC_route_entry with iosapic
  - From: Cui, Dexuan

Prev by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] dom0 linux: Reassign memory resources to device for pci passthrough.
Next by Date: [Xen-devel] Re: [Question] Do we need to support devices that do not strictly follow the PCI-e specification?
Previous by thread: [Xen-devel] RE: [PATCH] Share the IO_APIC_route_entry with iosapic
Next by thread: [Xen-devel] RAMDISK-Boot: Not enough RAM for domain 0 allocation.
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.