From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ben Thomas Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow building with perfc and perfc_arrays Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 17:17:47 -0500 Message-ID: <43F4FA0B.2010309@virtualiron.com> References: <43F4D80C.4050308@virtualiron.com> <20060216212643.GS3490@sorel.sous-sol.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060216212643.GS3490@sorel.sous-sol.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Chris Wright Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Hi, Well, I did use the phrase "simple-minded". It seemed like adequate warning. ;-) My goal was to get it compiling and out of my way so that I could work on something else. This was purely annoying and I spent very little time on it. Then, once I got it compiling, the guilt-gene kicked in and I thought I should submit the changes. Your changes are more complete, and I like them better. (Now, if I could manage to spend the time to package up other changes that I've made ...) Thanks, -b Chris Wright wrote: > * Ben Thomas (bthomas@virtualiron.com) wrote: > >>Attempts to build with either perfc or perfc_arrays fails. Some of >>this is specific to the platform (eg, __x86_64__). Add simple-minded >>fixes to allow building with these options. >> >>This patch resolves these issues and now builds on i386 and x86_64 > > > I was just doing similar. Only real difference I had was just using > char in the dom0_perfc_desc instead of the char* cast. > > typedef struct dom0_perfc_desc { > - uint8_t name[80]; /* name of perf counter */ > + char name[80]; /* name of perf counter */ > > And a typo fix, which you accidentally propagate. > > +PERFCOUNTER_CPU(apshot_pages, "apshot_pages") > > I had simply done: > > - perfc_decr(apshot_pages); > + perfc_decr(snapshot_pages); > > Accidental conversion to percpu counter of a couple of these. And, > finally, this isn't quite enough for PAE. > > Here's my patch, mind taking a double check? > > thanks, > -chris