WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 3] management tools portability

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:32 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2006, at 16:00, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> 
> > Since the patches touch a lot of code, it's easy for other checkins to
> > cause conflicts and so it's difficult to maintain the patches out of
> > tree.
> 
> Is this the last set of interface munging we need to do for ppc, or is 
> there more in the pipeline? If these two patches are all that is now 
> required, I'm inclined just to take them.

These are the only patches I know of. I think it's likely there's a
corner or two I missed, but these patches alone get things working for
me.

> Apart from that, patch 3/3 changes lots of mfn fields to u64. Shouldn't 
> they properly use your new xen_pfn_t type? There are a few other frame 
> numbers dotted around the public headers that perhaps ought also to be 
> converted?

I believe the agreement we reached earlier was that *internally* (on any
side of any interface), passing around a single PFN can be type
'unsigned long', since on 32-bit systems that still lets you manage 42
bits of physical memory, and that "should be good enough for anybody."

Unrelated to that, I converted all 'unsigned long' in the *interface* to
be u64. The one exception is that PFN arrays (not single PFNs) became
'xen_pfn_t'.

Does that make sense?

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel