Re: [Xen-devel] XENPF_ numbering?

To:	John Levon <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] XENPF_ numbering?
From:	Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 14:53:17 +0100
Delivery-date:	Fri, 27 Jul 2007 06:51:08 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<20070727131734.GA9121@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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:	AcfQVXu7ugA+JDxIEdyOVAAX8io7RQ==
Thread-topic:	[Xen-devel] XENPF_ numbering?
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/11.3.3.061214

The old dom0_op() API maps onto the platform_op, so any platform_ops that
were previously dom0_ops had to keep their old dom0_op-era numbers.

 -- Keir

On 27/7/07 14:17, "John Levon" <levon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
> I'm sure it's something obvious, but why are there big gaps in XENPF_*
> numbering?
> 
> thanks
> john
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] XENPF_ numbering?