Since we can't keep the same copy of header files for pv-ops and XEN already,
When sync back the header to XEN, I will only sync back the
modified comments and other required changes. As for the change for
programming conventions (inline function vs micro), I will not put them
back to XEN. Is it OK for you?
As for the union structure for recovery action, since no one is using it
now,I plan firstly to add a comment on it, something like "If more than
one kind of recovery action perbank permited, union structure need to
be changed". How do you think about it?
Thanks a lot!
Christoph Egger wrote:
> On Wednesday 05 August 2009 03:57:20 Ke, Liping wrote:
>> Hi, Christoph
>> Please see my below comments.
>> And also, I found some interfaces are different in pv_ops kernel
>> such as GUEST_HANDLE related. Seems we can't keep the same copy of
>> file between XEN and GUEST.
> That's not a problem as long as the ABI doesn't change.
>> We have to do slight changes to the XEN file before copying it to
>> guest kernel.
> Well, the comment updates I suppose.
>> And also, for the header file, I modified a little according to
>> Andi's feedback such as gigantic macros will be unacceptable
>> according to kernel code conventions, etc. So I modify
>> x86_mcinfo_lookup into inline function.
> NetBSD also has some "local" guest header changes which aren't
> by Keir due to Xen conventions.
> Keep in mind that you have to merge the headers whenever you sync up
> with Xen.
>> I will resend the new patch to all of you for further feedback.
>> After the patch is accepted, I will sync the modified head file back
>> to XEN for consistency.
> Please practise friendly actions for non-Linux guests when changing
> the headers. Changing the macros for only one guest isn't a friendly
> action for all guests.
> Please only sync back the comment updates.
> If NetBSD, Solaris and Linux were trying to have all local changes in
> Xen headers, they would become a mess.
>> Thanks a lot for your help!
Xen-devel mailing list