From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Cooper Subject: Re: [PATCH 3 of 5] tools/libxc: Implement of xc_readconsolering_buffer Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:07:06 +0000 Message-ID: <5125FFDA.2070008@citrix.com> References: <6b8c513cff4f95b4a39f.1361383533@andrewcoop.uk.xensource.com> <1361440867.26546.44.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1361440867.26546.44.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Ian Jackson , "Keir (Xen.org)" , Jan Beulich , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 21/02/13 10:01, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2013-02-20 at 18:05 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> Functions identically to xc_readconsolering(), but uses a user-provided >> xc_hypercall_buffer_t to save using a bounce buffer. > Can we now trivially reimplement xc_readconsolering in terms of this > function? > > Should just be a case of replacing all the code between bounce_pre and > bounce_post with a call > xc_readconsolering_buffer(xch, HYPERCALL_BUFFER_AS_ARG(buffer), > pnr_chars, clear, incremental, pindex); > ? Ok > > We should probably also deprecate the old one and at least have a vague > idea that we might eventually switch all the callers over (you don't > need to here though, unless you are super keen). > > Ian. > Depending on the quantity of callers, I may or may not due to time. ~Andrew