From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 10:42:18 -0500 Message-ID: <20121207154218.GA4760@phenom.dumpdata.com> References: <36f4ae2f-4fbc-4b14-a084-7b336a052a7a@default> 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: Keir Fraser Cc: Ian Campbell , Dan Magenheimer , Zhigang Wang , Jan Beulich , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:00PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote: > On 28/11/2012 22:03, "Dan Magenheimer" wrote: > > > xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer > > There was some discussion on whether these numbers should just have > XENMEM_reserved_oracle_{1,2} definitions, or similar. Or even just reserved > by a header comment. Does anyone have any strong opinions? I would just go with the claim/get_unclaimed. The 'Oracle' part is already in the comment section. > > -- Keir > > > diff --git a/xen/include/public/memory.h b/xen/include/public/memory.h > > index f1ddbc0..3ee2902 100644 > > --- a/xen/include/public/memory.h > > +++ b/xen/include/public/memory.h > > @@ -421,6 +421,12 @@ struct xen_mem_sharing_op { > > typedef struct xen_mem_sharing_op xen_mem_sharing_op_t; > > DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_mem_sharing_op_t); > > > > +/* > > + * Reserve ops for future/out-of-tree "claim" patches (Oracle) > > + */ > > +#define XENMEM_claim_pages 24 > > +#define XENMEM_get_unclaimed_pages 25 > > + > > #endif /* defined(__XEN__) || defined(__XEN_TOOLS__) */ > > > > #endif /* __XEN_PUBLIC_MEMORY_H__ */ > >