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

Re: [PATCH V1 07/16] xen/dm: Make x86's DM feature common




On 24.09.20 14:03, Jan Beulich wrote:

Hi Jan

On 22.09.2020 18:46, Oleksandr wrote:
On 14.09.20 18:56, Jan Beulich wrote:
Hi Jan

On 10.09.2020 22:22, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote:
--- a/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h
+++ b/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h
@@ -150,6 +150,18 @@ do_dm_op(
       unsigned int nr_bufs,
       XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_dm_op_buf_t) bufs);
+struct dmop_args {
+    domid_t domid;
+    unsigned int nr_bufs;
+    /* Reserve enough buf elements for all current hypercalls. */
+    struct xen_dm_op_buf buf[2];
+};
+
+int arch_dm_op(struct xen_dm_op *op,
+               struct domain *d,
+               const struct dmop_args *op_args,
+               bool *const_op);
+
   #ifdef CONFIG_HYPFS
   extern long
   do_hypfs_op(
There are exactly two CUs which need to see these two declarations.
Personally I think they should go into a new header, or at least
into one that half-way fits (from the pov of its other contents)
and doesn't get included by half the code base. But maybe it's
just me ...
I am afraid, I didn't get why this header is not suitable for keeping
this stuff...
While I have no major objection against exposing arch_dm_op() to more
than just the relevant CUs, I don't think I'd like to see struct
dmop_args becoming visible to "everyone", and in particular changes
to it causing a re-build of (almost) everything.

Thank you for clarification, I got your point

--
Regards,

Oleksandr Tyshchenko




 


Rackspace

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