From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Bonasera Subject: Re: [patch] "frame number" size in hypercall ABI Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 12:14:46 -0700 Message-ID: <44468C26.7000704@sun.com> References: <444657FE.2020401@sun.com> <1145465055.9435.10.camel@basalt.austin.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Keir Fraser Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Hollis Blanchard List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Keir Fraser wrote: > > On 19 Apr 2006, at 17:44, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >> "xen_frameno_t" then? > > > xen_pfn_t? Definitely won't conflict with anyone, and I prefer 'pfn' to > 'frameno' as it's more consistent with other names we have in the > interface. why not xen_mfn_t? Is "p" here for "page" or "physical"? using "m" makes it a bit more explicit. > >> Attached is the updated patch, with typos fixed and a couple other >> corrections. I've also added the type to arch-x86_64.h and arch-ia64.h, >> so I think the patch is ready to be applied. > > > What about the Linux kernel -- shouldn't that be changed too? At least > where it handles arrays of longs passed to memory_op()? > > Inside Xen, does shadow.h really need changing at all? Once entries are > unpacked from an array by a hypercall they could just be passed round as > longs, right? > > Sorry about the to'ing-and-fro'ing but we need to make sure interface > changes are complete and correct and this one is inevitably pretty > far-reaching. > > -- Keir >