* [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
@ 2012-11-28 22:03 Dan Magenheimer
2012-12-06 17:24 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-12-07 15:15 ` Keir Fraser
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dan Magenheimer @ 2012-11-28 22:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Keir Fraser; +Cc: Konrad Wilk, Zhigang Wang, xen-devel
xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
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__ */
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
2012-11-28 22:03 [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use Dan Magenheimer
@ 2012-12-06 17:24 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-12-07 15:15 ` Keir Fraser
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Dan Magenheimer @ 2012-12-06 17:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich, Keir Fraser; +Cc: Konrad Wilk, Zhigang Wang, xen-devel
ping?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Magenheimer
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 3:03 PM
> To: Jan Beulich; Keir Fraser
> Cc: xen-devel@lists.xen.org; Konrad Wilk; Zhigang Wang
> Subject: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
>
> xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
>
> 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__ */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
2012-11-28 22:03 [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use Dan Magenheimer
2012-12-06 17:24 ` Dan Magenheimer
@ 2012-12-07 15:15 ` Keir Fraser
2012-12-07 15:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-12-07 15:43 ` Jan Beulich
1 sibling, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Keir Fraser @ 2012-12-07 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Magenheimer, Jan Beulich
Cc: Ian Campbell, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, Zhigang Wang, xen-devel
On 28/11/2012 22:03, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
> xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
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?
-- 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__ */
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
2012-12-07 15:15 ` Keir Fraser
@ 2012-12-07 15:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-12-07 15:43 ` Jan Beulich
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk @ 2012-12-07 15:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keir Fraser
Cc: Ian Campbell, Dan Magenheimer, Zhigang Wang, Jan Beulich,
xen-devel
On Fri, Dec 07, 2012 at 03:15:00PM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 28/11/2012 22:03, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
>
> 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__ */
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
2012-12-07 15:15 ` Keir Fraser
2012-12-07 15:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
@ 2012-12-07 15:43 ` Jan Beulich
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2012-12-07 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Dan Magenheimer, Keir Fraser
Cc: Ian Campbell, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk, Zhigang Wang, xen-devel
>>> On 07.12.12 at 16:15, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org> wrote:
> On 28/11/2012 22:03, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
>
>> xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
>
> 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 think if it's known what they're for, calling them by their names
should be quite fine.
Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-07 15:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-11-28 22:03 [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use Dan Magenheimer
2012-12-06 17:24 ` Dan Magenheimer
2012-12-07 15:15 ` Keir Fraser
2012-12-07 15:42 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2012-12-07 15:43 ` Jan Beulich
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).