On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 02:36:57PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> >Code is using ioctl() where it should be using a helper function. I
> >don't mind looking into cleaning these things up at some point, but it
> >doesn't seem critical right now. But we'd like to get a firm grasp on
> >header naming so we can deal with the unfortunate two-way dependency
> >these headers have between dom0 and dom0 userspace.
> >
> >IOW, I agree with you, but I think the patch needs to go in regardless.
> >In particular, something like my patch will still be needed, even if
> >it's just private to tools/libxc/.
>
> I'd have a solaris header subdirectory in addition to the linux one.
> The interfaces may not necessarily stay very similar.
That's exactly what the patch as-is allows for: libxc/xen/dom0/ is only
created on Linux. If you'd prefer me to always create libxc/xen/linux/,
then make a dom0/ symlink point at it, that's fine, but it's kind of
pointless since it wouldn't get used on non-Linux anyway. It was also
one reason I was asking about plans for when linux sparse tree doesn't
exist.
Or maybe I've got the wrong end of the stick; what are you proposing?
Note that I'm not at all sure that it makes sense to have the Solaris
headers in there in xensource's tree as Xen and the kernel have such
different distribution mechanisms.
What we'd /really/ like to have, in order to maximise the shared code,
is a permanent file in libxc/dom0/ containing the structures, which
includes a kernel-specific header for the actual ioctl defines, and any
future kernel-specific bits.
regards,
john
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home