Re: [patch rfc 1/3] xen arch header rework.

[Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de>]

Jan Beulich wrote:
> I'm not sure I like the tagging (as it'll likely result in even more overriding
> in the 32-on-64 patches), but I understand the motivation.
> 
>> +    uint32_t      unused;  /* alignment                                     */
> 
> Could you use _pad[0-9]* here as is done elsewhere, so that scripts
> can easily recognize the field as not needing copying (and namely not
> needing matching source and destination fields) when translating
> structures between architectures?

Right now I'm looking at your patches posted yesterday, especially the
"compatibility_header_generation" one, and see if that works out better.

The "just fixing up arch-${name}.h" approach has its limits.  In the end
I'll need a arch-specific xen.h too.  Due to longs being in quite some
structs, also due to "struct arch_foo" being element of "struct foo",
even the structs outside arch-${name}.h end up being quite different on
different archs ...

cheers,

  Gerd

-- 
Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@suse.de>
http://www.suse.de/~kraxel/julika-dora.jpeg