Re: [Xen-devel] confusion over vcpumask in mmuext_op

To:	Mark Williamson <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] confusion over vcpumask in mmuext_op
From:	Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:44:20 +0000
Cc:	John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:44:14 -0800
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<200701040241.47438.mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
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>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	Accv5OhQJuvFmZvYEduNhgAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] confusion over vcpumask in mmuext_op
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.2.5.060620



On 4/1/07 02:41, "Mark Williamson" <mark.williamson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So actually the field vcpumask is currently being compiled as a void *.

And we get away with this because, on x86, there is no ABI difference
between a guest handle and a plain pointer. This was done just as an
interface cleanup, and because I think it makes Jan's 32-on-64 work easier.

 -- Keir


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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] confusion over vcpumask in mmuext_op