Re: [Xen-devel] Is: PVH + ARM new hypercalls. Was: Re: [PATCH]: PVH: specify xen features strings cleany for PVH

["Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx> 02/01/13 3:23 AM >>>
>On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 10:48:12 +0000 "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>> On 29.01.13 at 03:57, Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rathor@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >>> wrote:
>> > On xen side I added the ifdef:
>> > 
>> > #if __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__ < 0x00040300
>> >     unsigned long gdt_frames[16], gdt_ents; /* GDT (machine frames,
>> > # ents) */
>> > #else
>> >     union {
>> >         struct {
>> >             /* GDT (machine frames, # ents) */
>> >             unsigned long gdt_frames[16], gdt_ents;
>> >         } pv;
>> >         struct {
>> >             /* PVH: GDTR addr and size */
>> >             unsigned long gdtaddr, gdtsz;
>> >         } pvh;
>> >     } u;
>> > #endif
>> > 
>> > but it doesn't matter on linux side, so up to you.
>> 
>> But I'd still prefer for this to go away again - you could simply use
>> gdt_frames[0] for gdtaddr and gdt_ents for the (normalized)
>> gdtsz.
>
>That was my patch version 1 during linux patch review. Then the reviewer
>suggested to make it a union.
>
>> And if you nevertheless go the union route, call it "gdt" instead
>> of "u" and drop the gdt/gdt_ prefixes from the member names
>> (yes, I know, grepping and cscoping for such member is more
>> difficult, but I continue to see more advantage in avoiding the
>> redundancy).
>
>That was my patch version 2, where I called it gdt and another reviewer
>suggested to change to u. So I changed it to u.
>
>It's gone thru enough iterations that I'd like to leave as is. Thank
>you in advance for your compromise in helping us mortals grep/cscope 
>to learn code.

That's part of the reason why I said from the beginning that doing the Linux
side first is wrong.

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel