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] [patch] [3/3] dom0_ops explicitly sized types

To: Chris Wright <chrisw@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [patch] [3/3] dom0_ops explicitly sized types
From: John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 20:38:05 +0100
Cc: Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Fri, 26 May 2006 12:38:32 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20060526185746.GG2724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <1148511400.26460.39.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148511874.26460.47.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060525153957.GO6710@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148583731.15517.16.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060526133221.GA5569@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148653733.24768.49.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148657437.26643.5.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148660853.24768.97.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1148665048.26643.12.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060526185746.GG2724@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 11:57:46AM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:

> > > Anyway, regardless of any opinion expressed here the Linux gatekeepers
> > > will no doubt insist on __uN. We might as well do it now as change it
> > > later.
> > 
> > And where will userspace, e.g. tools/libxc/xc_linux.c, find the
> > definition of __u64?
> Same place they do for the rest of shared headers (glib-kernheaders,
> for example).  Please use the proper form (u64 internal to kernel, and
> __u64 for header visisble to userspace).  I'm going to have to clean it
> up anyway.

This won't work on platforms that don't provide __u64. Xen needs to
define them somewhere for the userspace.


Xen-devel mailing list