From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mukesh Rathor Subject: Re: hypercall_xlat_continuation() Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 14:58:52 -0700 Message-ID: <4A17201C.1090801@oracle.com> References: Reply-To: mukesh.rathor@oracle.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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" , Jan Beulich List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Ok. Even if I can't make it clearer, at least I'll add few lines of comments explaining what's going on, after (and if) I figure it out. Jan, It seems assumption is made that a 64bit dom0 will not have a 32bit app making hypercall? BUG_ON(*reg != (unsigned int)*reg); <==== can you please explain the rationale? Also, can you please comment on other checks, dwiddling with mask, setting *id to *reg value, etc. in this function? thanks, Mukesh (starting a new campaign against overuse of ## macros in xen) Keir Fraser wrote: > Jan wrote it and may still understand it. He's your best hope. If as a > result you think you can make it clearer, please send a patch. :-) > > -- Keir > > On 22/05/2009 03:57, "Mukesh Rathor" wrote: > >> Can someone please explain the madness in the else part of this function? The >> caller magically passes 2 for mask? Is this already documented anywhere by >> chance for mortals like me :). >> >> thanks, >> Mukesh >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >