Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] [GSOC14] refactored mempaging code from xenpaging to libxc.

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 2014-06-28 at 09:02 +0530, Dushyant Behl wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> > In the meantime I noticed that it doesn't compile for 32-bit either:
> >
> > xc_mem_paging_setup.c: In function 'xc_mem_paging_ring_setup':
> > xc_mem_paging_setup.c:50:5: error: passing argument 4 of 'xc_get_hvm_param' 
> > from incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
> > In file included from xc_private.h:32:0,
> >                  from xc_mem_paging_setup.c:26:
> > xenctrl.h:1867:5: note: expected 'long unsigned int *' but argument is of 
> > type 'uint64_t *'
> > xc_mem_paging_setup.c:53:41: error: passing argument 4 of 
> > 'xc_map_foreign_batch' from incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
> > In file included from xc_private.h:32:0,
> >                  from xc_mem_paging_setup.c:26:
> > xenctrl.h:1431:7: note: expected 'xen_pfn_t *' but argument is of type 
> > 'uint64_t *'
> > xc_mem_paging_setup.c:58:47: error: passing argument 6 of 
> > 'xc_domain_populate_physmap_exact' from incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
> > In file included from xc_private.h:32:0,
> >                  from xc_mem_paging_setup.c:26:
> > xenctrl.h:1326:5: note: expected 'xen_pfn_t *' but argument is of type 
> > 'uint64_t *'
> > xc_mem_paging_setup.c:67:41: error: passing argument 4 of 
> > 'xc_map_foreign_batch' from incompatible pointer type [-Werror]
> > In file included from xc_private.h:32:0,
> >                  from xc_mem_paging_setup.c:26:
> > xenctrl.h:1431:7: note: expected 'xen_pfn_t *' but argument is of type 
> > 'uint64_t *'
> > xc_mem_paging_setup.c:114:5: error: passing argument 5 of 
> > 'xc_domain_decrease_reservation_exact' from incompatible pointer type 
> > [-Werror]
> > In file included from xc_private.h:32:0,
> >                  from xc_mem_paging_setup.c:26:
> > xenctrl.h:1307:5: note: expected 'xen_pfn_t *' but argument is of type 
> > 'uint64_t *'
> > cc1: all warnings being treated as errors
> 
> I think this is because of the reason that two of the variables in the
> code have been changed from unsigned long to uint64_t.
> 
> Does the code, on top of which you tried to compile the patch for 32
> bit include David Vrabel's GenID series fixes for the prototypes of
> xc_[gs]et_hvm_param()?
> I made this change because of a suggestion from Andrew and I think
> these will not create any problem once the code include the GenID
> series fixes.
> If this is indeed the case then I think we should delay applying this
> patch until those changes get merged.

David's patches were committed on Friday and are in the staging branch
now. (Push to master is blocked by an unrelated change right now).

Ian.


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