Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 02/18] argo: introduce the argo_message_op hypercall boilerplate

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 20.12.18 at 07:38, <christopher.w.clark@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Presence is gated upon CONFIG_ARGO.
> 
> Registers the hypercall previously reserved for this.
> Takes 5 arguments, does nothing and returns -ENOSYS.
> 
> Will be avoiding a compat ABI by using fixed-size types in hypercall ops so
> HYPERCALL, rather than COMPAT_CALL, is the correct macro for the hypercall
> tables.
> 
> Even though handles will be used for (up to) two of the arguments to the
> hypercall, there will be no need for any XLAT_* translation functions
> because the referenced data structures have been constructed to be exactly
> the same size and bit pattern on both 32-bit and 64-bit guests, and padded
> to be integer multiples of 32 bits in size. This means that the same
> copy_to_guest and copy_from_guest logic can be relied upon to perform as
> required without any further intervention. Testing communication with 32
> and 64 bit guests has confirmed this works as intended.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christopher Clark <christopher.clark6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
with one further question:

> --- a/xen/include/public/xen.h
> +++ b/xen/include/public/xen.h
> @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_ulong_t);
>  #define __HYPERVISOR_domctl               36
>  #define __HYPERVISOR_kexec_op             37
>  #define __HYPERVISOR_tmem_op              38
> -#define __HYPERVISOR_xc_reserved_op       39 /* reserved for XenClient */
> +#define __HYPERVISOR_argo_message_op      39

Is "message op" really appropriate? I.e. wouldn't
__HYPERVISOR_argo_op be a better fit considering that this is
not just about message exchange, but also configuration etc?

Jan



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel