From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tim Deegan Subject: Re: 32bit xen and "claim" Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 09:30:55 +0000 Message-ID: <20121102093055.GA77212@ocelot.phlegethon.org> References: <620abc58-07b9-4102-b883-0bfcd8e78471@default> <20121101204622.GA66969@ocelot.phlegethon.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Dan Magenheimer Cc: "Keir (Xen.org)" , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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. Tim.