Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use

[Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:00PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 28/11/2012 22:03, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
> 
> There was some discussion on whether these numbers should just have
> XENMEM_reserved_oracle_{1,2} definitions, or similar. Or even just reserved
> by a header comment. Does anyone have any strong opinions?

I would just go with the claim/get_unclaimed. The 'Oracle' part is already
in the comment section.

> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> > diff --git a/xen/include/public/memory.h b/xen/include/public/memory.h
> > index f1ddbc0..3ee2902 100644
> > --- a/xen/include/public/memory.h
> > +++ b/xen/include/public/memory.h
> > @@ -421,6 +421,12 @@ struct xen_mem_sharing_op {
> >  typedef struct xen_mem_sharing_op xen_mem_sharing_op_t;
> >  DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mem_sharing_op_t);
> >  
> > +/*
> > + * Reserve ops for future/out-of-tree "claim" patches (Oracle)
> > + */
> > +#define XENMEM_claim_pages                  24
> > +#define XENMEM_get_unclaimed_pages          25
> > +
> >  #endif /* defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__) */
> >  
> >  #endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_MEMORY_H__ */
> 
>