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


[Xen-devel] Re: [XenPPC] [RFC][PATCH] Isolating ACM's architecture-depen

To: Stefan Berger <stefanb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [XenPPC] [RFC][PATCH] Isolating ACM's architecture-dependent parts
From: Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:00:16 -0500
Cc: xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, tristan.gingold@xxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 08:00:31 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OF3C8897CF.A28B22CC-ON852571E8.0051A9E1-852571E8.0051CFAB@xxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Organization: IBM Linux Technology Center
References: <OF3C8897CF.A28B22CC-ON852571E8.0051A9E1-852571E8.0051CFAB@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 10:53 -0400, Stefan Berger wrote:
> hollisb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 09/13/2006 10:51:29 AM:
> > 
> > Other than that, this patch seems great. 
> Don't want to have that checked in so far, though. 

Why not?

BTW, I missed this first time:

> --- /dev/null
> +++ root/xen-unstable.hg/xen/acm/acm_multiboot.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
> +#include <acm/acm_hooks.h>

That is where the (non-inline) ACM/multiboot functions should live; not
in a header file.

> What about the multiboot code. Do you think PPC will be able to also
> use this part? Not that I would move it, it's more out of curiosity. 

Well, that ifdef will need changing. Why must it exist at all, is it
some weirdness of Xen/x86-64?

Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center

Xen-devel mailing list