From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ian.campbell@citrix.com (Ian Campbell) Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 09:42:57 +0000 Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 2/7] xen/arm: introduce HYPERVISOR_platform_op on arm and arm64 In-Reply-To: References: <1447349448-22610-2-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <5645E868.30706@citrix.com> Message-ID: <1447666977.15629.9.camel@citrix.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, 2015-11-13 at 18:10 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > I agree with your point (I thought about it myself) but the current > assembly scheme for hypercalls doesn't work well with that. I would have > to introduce, and maintain going forward, two special hypercall > implementations in assembly, one for arm and another for arm64, just to > set interface_version. I don't think it is worth it; I prefer to have to > maintain the explicit interface_version setting at the call sites (that > today is just one). You could give the bare assembly stub a different name (append _core or _raw or something) and make HYPERVISOR_platform_op a C wrapper for it which DTRT. Ian.