Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Xen/ia64 presentation

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 28 Apr 2005, at 19:10, Hollis Blanchard wrote:

> I see you just renamed some structures in the unstable tree... now how
> about exec_domain? Are we happy with "vcpu_state"?
The '_state' seems a bit superfluous. How about just 'struct vcpu'?

> > xen_regs/xen_state should probably be entirely arch-specific anyway.
> > Even now it only pokes through into common code in interrupt-handler
> > definitions (the final parameter is a xen_regs pointer). It'd be great
> > to nuke those last few from common code. :-)
> Yup. I think this could be done by passing 'current' to
> show_registers(), and let the arch code figure out what to do from
> there. After I get PPC to a more useful state I will see about the
> patch, if somebody hasn't beaten me to it...
I've decided to backtracked on this one. Every architecture will have 
the concept of an interrupted activation, and a stack frame containing 
(at least some of) that activation's state. The pointer passed to IRQ 
handlers is a pointer to that state on the stack. If we do not pass it 
explicitly to the handler then it is very hard to reliably recalculate 
it if it is needed, and it is useful for debugging purposes at the very 
least.
A 'cpu_user_regs' seems like something every arch can provide, right?

 -- Keir


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