From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: sstabellini@kernel.org (Stefano Stabellini)
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2015 14:45:23 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xen/arm: introduce HYPERVISOR_dom0_op
 on arm and arm64
In-Reply-To: <563B9E1402000078000B247C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
References: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511051706560.13541@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
 <1446743385-12848-2-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
 <563B9E1402000078000B247C@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511061443330.23825@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, 5 Nov 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 05.11.15 at 18:09, <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> wrote:
> > --- a/arch/arm/xen/hypercall.S
> > +++ b/arch/arm/xen/hypercall.S
> > @@ -89,6 +89,7 @@ HYPERCALL2(memory_op);
> >  HYPERCALL2(physdev_op);
> >  HYPERCALL3(vcpu_op);
> >  HYPERCALL1(tmem_op);
> > +HYPERCALL1(dom0_op);
> 
> Assuming this somehow tries to mirror x86 naming - time to rename it
> there? I don't see why you'd want to introduce a dom0_op when it
> has been renamed to platform_op many years ago - see
> public/dom0_ops.h.

In Linux it was never renamed. I could do that now as a precursor to
this.