Re: 32bit xen and "claim"

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>]

> From: Tim Deegan [mailto:tim@xen.org]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:31 AM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; xen-devel@lists.xen.org
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"
> 
> At 13:57 -0700 on 01 Nov (1351778261), Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > From: Tim Deegan [mailto:tim@xen.org]
> > > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"
> > >
> > > At 13:34 -0700 on 01 Nov (1351776880), Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > > With the plan to obsolete the x86 32-bit hypervisor at 4.3,
> > > > when prototyping the "claim" hypercall/subop, can I assume
> > > > that the CONFIG_X86 code in the hypervisor and, specifically
> > > > any separation of the concepts of xen_heap from dom_heap,
> > > > can be ignored?
> > > >
> > > > Or will the ARM version of the hypervisor be requiring
> > > > a similar separation of xen_heap vs dom_heap?
> > >
> > > Yes, 32-bit ARM has this separation.
> >
> > Hmmm... looking at page_alloc.c... does ARM overload CONFIG_X86
> > to mean CONFIG-32-bitness then?
> 
> No.  CONFIG_X86 doesn't mean 32-bit, even on x86; it means i386/amd64 as
> distinct from MIPS/ARM/PPC.

Oops, sorry, I was confusing the old code in page_alloc.c that
said:

	#if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__)

when I was reading the new code that says:

	#if !defined(CONFIG_X86)

(why not #ifndef?)

Sorry for the ARM-y noise. :-(

But as long as I've bothered you already... does the ARM port
already (or will it soon) support 64-bit versions of ARM?

Dan