From: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>, Daniel Kiper <daniel.kiper@oracle.com>,
KeirFraser <keir@xen.org>, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] xen: make GUEST_HANDLE_64() and uint64_aligned_t available everywhere
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 14:17:29 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51C99869.7080604@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51C99CD802000078000E0528@nat28.tlf.novell.com>
On 25/06/13 12:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 25.06.13 at 11:42, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 25/06/13 08:42, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 24.06.13 at 19:42, David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>> #define uint64_aligned_t uint64_t __attribute__((aligned(8)))
>>>
>>> This line is the reason why such a change is not acceptable: We
>>> require the headers to not use gcc extensions outside of regions
>>> guarded by dependencies on __XEN__ and/or __XEN_TOOLS__ (which
>>> we know/require will always be built by gcc compatible tool chains).
>>
>> I did this because this is identical to what ARM is doing.
>>
>> I think we do what a guest handle type that is always 64 bits long. For
>> x86, perhaps something like (but with a better name):
>>
>> #define ___DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(name, type) \
>> typedef struct { type *p; } \
>> __guest_handle_ ## name; \
>> #if defined(__XEN__) || (__XEN_TOOLS__)
>> typedef struct { union { type *p; uint64_aligned_t q; }; } \
>> __guest_handle_64_ ## name \
>> #endif
>> typedef struct { union { type *p; uint64_t q; }; } \
>> __guest_handle_new_ ## name
>
> The uint64_t here ...
>
>> #undef set_xen_guest_handle_raw
>> #define set_xen_guest_handle_raw(hnd, val) \
>> do { if ( sizeof(hnd) == 8 ) *(uint64_t *)&(hnd) = 0; \
>> (hnd).p = val; \
>> } while ( 0 )
>>
>> #if defined(__XEN__) || (__XEN_TOOLS__)
>> #define uint64_aligned_t uint64_t __attribute__((aligned(8)))
>> #define __XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(name) __guest_handle_64_ ## name
>> #define XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(name) __XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(name)
>> #endif
>>
>> #define __XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_NEW(name) __guest_handle_new_ ## name
>> /* This must be aligned to 8 bytes with padding if necessary. */
>> #define XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_NEW(name) __XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_NEW(name)
>
> ... does in no way satisfy the comment here, so what's the point?
The comment is unclear, sorry.
/* A structure containing this type of guest handle must align the
field to 8 bytes, using padding fields as necessary. */
>>> I'm afraid you'll need to find a way to do what you want in the
>>> kexec interface with the traditional manual padding approach.
>>
>> This is fine. The kexec interface has the necessary padding and doesn't
>> need the the aligned attribute.
>
> Not afaict, unless you meant if substituting XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_NEW()
> (rather than XEN_GUEST_HANDLE()) for XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64().
Yes.
David
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-25 13:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-24 17:42 [PATCHv6 0/10] kexec: extend kexec hypercall for use with pv-ops kernels David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 01/10] x86: give FIX_EFI_MPF its own fixmap entry David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 02/10] xen: make GUEST_HANDLE_64() and uint64_aligned_t available everywhere David Vrabel
2013-06-25 7:42 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 9:42 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-25 11:36 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 13:17 ` David Vrabel [this message]
2013-06-25 13:53 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 14:48 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-25 15:02 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 03/10] kexec: add public interface for improved load/unload sub-ops David Vrabel
2013-06-25 7:45 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-27 17:29 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-28 6:53 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 04/10] kexec: add infrastructure for handling kexec images David Vrabel
2013-06-25 7:54 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-27 17:17 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 05/10] kexec: extend hypercall with improved load/unload ops David Vrabel
2013-06-25 8:31 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 14:30 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-25 14:59 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 18:52 ` Daniel Kiper
2013-06-27 17:39 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 06/10] xen: kexec crash image when dom0 crashes David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 07/10] libxc: add hypercall buffer arrays David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 08/10] libxc: add API for kexec hypercall David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 09/10] x86: check kexec relocation code fits in a page David Vrabel
2013-06-25 8:33 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 9:31 ` Andrew Cooper
2013-06-25 11:38 ` Jan Beulich
2013-06-25 16:38 ` Ian Campbell
2013-06-25 19:00 ` Daniel Kiper
2013-06-26 9:50 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-24 17:42 ` [PATCH 10/10] MAINTAINERS: Add KEXEC maintainer David Vrabel
2013-06-24 20:31 ` [PATCHv6 0/10] kexec: extend kexec hypercall for use with pv-ops kernels Andrew Cooper
2013-06-25 19:27 ` Daniel Kiper
2013-06-26 9:44 ` David Vrabel
2013-06-26 9:52 ` Jan Beulich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51C99869.7080604@citrix.com \
--to=david.vrabel@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=daniel.kiper@oracle.com \
--cc=ian.campbell@citrix.com \
--cc=keir@xen.org \
--cc=tim@xen.org \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).