From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] xen/public: arm: Rework
	__guest_handle_param*
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 2015 15:39:15 +0000
Message-ID: <563783A3.2090802@citrix.com>
References: <1446228813-2593-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<1446228813-2593-3-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1511021518280.15801@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<56378041.1030305@citrix.com> <1446478555.3088.79.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=7410c804a=julien.grall@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZtHDt-0006no-HC
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 15:40:41 +0000
In-Reply-To: <1446478555.3088.79.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 02/11/15 15:35, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-02 at 15:24 +0000, Julien Grall wrote:
>> Hi Stefano,
>>
>> On 02/11/15 15:19, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> __guest_handle_param is used to represent a guest pointer stored pass
>>>> as
>>>> an hypercall parameters. They are the same size as the native
>>>> register
>>>> for the architecture. It will be 32-bit on ARM32 and 64-bit on ARM64.
>>>>
>>>> As the __guest_handle_param will always be the size of a native
>>>> pointer, there is no need to have a union with an unsigned long.
>>>>
>>>> Note that unsigned long may be not equivalent to the size of a
>>>> pointer
>>>> on ARM64. It depends whether the software is build using the LP64 or
>>>> LLP64 data model. The size of an unsigned long in the latter will be
>>>> 32-bit.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
>>>
>>> Obviously this is going to break set_xen_guest_handle_raw. I don't
>>> think
>>> this cannot be committed separately to the change to
>>> set_xen_guest_handle_raw.
>>
>> Well, all the usage of set_xen_guest_handle_raw within the hypervisor
>> are in compat and kexec which is not built for ARM.
> 
> Shall we drop it from ARM then?

No. Sorry it wasn't clear on my previous mail, I was only speaking about
the usage of set_xen_guest_handle_raw on a XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM.

set_xen_guest_handle_raw is used by the guest/toolstack to set a pointer
in a structure. All those usages are done with a GUEST_HANDLE and not a
GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall