From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Vincent Hanquez <vincent.hanquez@eu.citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7][RFC] make xenguest save & restore
	functions reentrant
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:39:41 +0000
Message-ID: <4B0139FD.2060703@eu.citrix.com>
References: <C7258650.1A277%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
In-Reply-To: <C7258650.1A277%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: Xen Devel <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

Keir Fraser wrote:
> Another option would be for all users of the macros to have a 'xenguest_ctx'
> structure, or whatever you call it. So e.g., in xc_resume:
>  struct xenguest_ctx _ctx, *ctx = &_ctx;
>  ctx->guest_width = ...
>  /* Leave unnecessary/meaningless fields for this caller uninitialised. */
> 
> What do you think? The ctx struct can't be that big; we can just ignore
> fields that make no sense outside save/restore (i.e., kind of split it into
> general-purpose and private/application-specific fields); and it does keep
> the macro invocations cleaner.

I'll give that a try. I don't think it's going to make that serie much 
nicer though.

-- 
Vincent