From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>
Subject: Re: 32bit xen and "claim"
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 20:46:22 +0000
Message-ID: <20121101204622.GA66969@ocelot.phlegethon.org>
References: <620abc58-07b9-4102-b883-0bfcd8e78471@default>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <620abc58-07b9-4102-b883-0bfcd8e78471@default>
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: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" <keir@xen.org>, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

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.

Tim.