From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/13] xen/arm: support VCPUOP_register_vcpu_info. Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 15:29:30 +0100 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: 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: Stefano Stabellini , Ian Campbell Cc: Julien Grall , "Keir (Xen.org)" , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "Tim (Xen.org)" , "JBeulich@suse.com" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 25/04/2013 12:38, "Stefano Stabellini" wrote: >>> +long do_restricted_vcpu_op(int cmd, int vcpuid, >>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(void) arg) >> >> This is a bit fugly but I suppose it's no worse than the other >> alternatives I can think of. >> >> I don't really like the "restricted" name but the other obvious >> alternative do_arch_vcpu_op is out because typically that's called >> *from* do_foo_op not instead of. >> >> Is renaming do_vcpu_op to do_common_vcpu_op and adding do_vcpu_op as >> per-arch on all architectures (basically a nop on x86) an option? > > This is a question for the x86 maintainers. Why not just call it do_arm_vcpu_op() or something? I.e., a new naming convention that indicates this arch-specific fn wraps the common hypercall fn? -- Keir