From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen: reserve next two XENMEM_ op numbers for future/out-of-tree use Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2012 15:15:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <36f4ae2f-4fbc-4b14-a084-7b336a052a7a@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <36f4ae2f-4fbc-4b14-a084-7b336a052a7a@default> 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 , Jan Beulich Cc: Ian Campbell , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , Zhigang Wang , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org 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? -- 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__ */