| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
Re: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface
On 3 Oct 2005, at 22:11, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
However, doesn't that same argument apply to correcting the ABI in the
first
place? Shadow page tables will overshadow the performance impact of
making
the ABI 32/64-bit clean.
The cost must also be paid by domains that don't require shadow page
tables (32-bit on 32-bit, in particular).
The 64-bit dom0_op patch you posted misses 64-bit-ifying the page-frame
arrays of GETMEMLIST and GETPAGEFRAMEINFO2. I had a go at 64-bit-ifying
the dom0_op interface myself, and gave up at those two because they are
particularly invasive to change.
-- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
| <Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface - padding, (continued)
Re: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Hollis Blanchard
RE: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Nakajima, Jun
Re: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Kip Macy
RE: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Ian Pratt
[Xen-devel] Re: 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Andi Kleen
RE: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Nakajima, Jun
RE: [Xen-devel] 32/64-bit hypercall interface, Ian Pratt
|
|
|
| |
|
Home