This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen/ia64 presentation

On 28 Apr 2005, at 19:10, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

I see you just renamed some structures in the unstable tree... now how
about exec_domain? Are we happy with "vcpu_state"?

The '_state' seems a bit superfluous. How about just 'struct vcpu'?

xen_regs/xen_state should probably be entirely arch-specific anyway.
Even now it only pokes through into common code in interrupt-handler
definitions (the final parameter is a xen_regs pointer). It'd be great
to nuke those last few from common code. :-)

Yup. I think this could be done by passing 'current' to
show_registers(), and let the arch code figure out what to do from
there. After I get PPC to a more useful state I will see about the
patch, if somebody hasn't beaten me to it...

I've decided to backtracked on this one. Every architecture will have the concept of an interrupted activation, and a stack frame containing (at least some of) that activation's state. The pointer passed to IRQ handlers is a pointer to that state on the stack. If we do not pass it explicitly to the handler then it is very hard to reliably recalculate it if it is needed, and it is useful for debugging purposes at the very least.

A 'cpu_user_regs' seems like something every arch can provide, right?

 -- Keir

Xen-devel mailing list