Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 01/11] arm: few missing #define

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2012-02-02 at 16:41 +0000, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 16:38 +0000 on 02 Feb (1328200680), Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > Few missing #define are the cause of a compile failure with
> > XEN_TARGET_ARM=arm and XEN_COMPILE_ARM=arm (for example in the case of a
> > native compilation). This patch fill the gaps.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  xen/include/public/arch-arm.h     |    2 ++
> >  xen/include/public/io/protocols.h |    3 +++
> >  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
> > index c430cf3..e04c4fd 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-arm.h
> > @@ -110,6 +110,8 @@ typedef struct arch_vcpu_info arch_vcpu_info_t;
> >  
> >  struct arch_shared_info { };
> >  typedef struct arch_shared_info arch_shared_info_t;
> > +typedef unsigned long xen_callback_t;
> 
> Can we make all new public interfaces explicitly sized, please?

Yes please, and explicitly sized in a way which is compatible with 64
bits too (i.e. u64 here rather than u32 even though PC happens to be 32
bits).

I'd quite like to do a sweep of the existing interfaces and arrange this
to be the case even for existing interfaces when used on new
architectures. I expect that will be an enormous amount of churn though
-- possibly not worth it.

Ian.


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