From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Andres Lagar-Cavilla" Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: Use memops for mem paging, sharing, and access, instead of domctls Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2012 05:00:24 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20120112144325.GE8324@aepfle.de> <20120126125746.GC74165@ocelot.phlegethon.org> Reply-To: andres@lagarcavilla.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120126125746.GC74165@ocelot.phlegethon.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Tim Deegan Cc: Olaf Hering , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, ian.campbell@citrix.com, andres@gridcentric.ca, keir.xen@gmail.com, ian.jackson@citrix.com, adin@gridcentric.ca List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > At 08:04 -0800 on 12 Jan (1326355474), Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote: >> > On Wed, Jan 11, Andres Lagar-Cavilla wrote: >> > >> >> +++ b/xen/include/public/domctl.h >> > >> >> +/* Use for teardown/setup of helper<->hypervisor interface for >> paging, >> >> + * access and sharing.*/ >> >> struct xen_domctl_mem_event_op { >> >> uint32_t op; /* XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_*_* */ >> >> uint32_t mode; /* XEN_DOMCTL_MEM_EVENT_OP_* */ >> >> >> >> - union { >> >> - /* OP_ENABLE IN: Virtual address of shared page */ >> >> - uint64_aligned_t shared_addr; >> >> - /* PAGING_PREP IN: buffer to immediately fill page in */ >> >> - uint64_aligned_t buffer; >> >> - } u; >> >> + uint64_aligned_t shared_addr; /* IN: Virtual address of shared >> >> page */ >> >> uint64_aligned_t ring_addr; /* IN: Virtual address of ring >> page >> >> */ >> >> >> >> - /* Other OPs */ >> >> - uint64_aligned_t gfn; /* IN: gfn of page being >> operated >> >> on */ >> >> + /* For binary backwards compatibility */ >> >> + uint64_aligned_t pad; >> >> }; >> > >> > Assuming this struct is routed through libxc, and libxc gets a new >> > SONAME for every release, doesnt this mean that every old binary has >> to >> > be recompiled anyway for the new release? >> > If so, the padding is not needed. >> Agreed, basically. Waiting to hear from tools maintainers about best >> approach to libxc. >> >> It seems that there aren't that many users relying on a fixed ABI, so we >> can (still, until 4.2) change things. But obviously I want to be >> careful. > > Ping? I have working code. Except that it blue-screened W7 once, so it's been put in the back-burner for next week. I can repost for review. Ok, I will. I have not heard any objections thus far to the ABI change. Andres > > Tim. >