On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 19:13 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-03-10 at 18:20 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Ian Campbell writes ("[Xen-devel] [PATCH] libxc: osdep: convert hypercall
> > buffer allocation"):
> > > libxc: osdep: convert hypercall buffer allocation
> >
> > Thanks, but:
> >
> > xc_pagetab.c: In function 'xc_translate_foreign_address':
> > xc_pagetab.c:64: error: implicit declaration of function
> > 'xen_cr3_to_pfn_x86_64'
> > xc_pagetab.c:68: error: implicit declaration of function
> > 'xen_cr3_to_pfn_x86_32'
> > make[1]: *** [xc_pagetab.o] Error 1
>
> >From this patch? Are you sure?
I'm reasonably sure this must be down to 22966:de49500f344a "86, libxc:
Fix xc_translate_foreign_address() for PV guests of" which added
xen_cr3_to_pfn to the foriegn headers and an incomplete rebuild on your
end.
The FOO_$(ARCH) symbols come out of tools/include/xen-foreign and are
auto-generated.
Ian.
>
> $ hg export libxc-osdep-hypercall-buffer.patch | diffstat -p1
> tools/libxc/xc_hcall_buf.c | 45
> ++++++++-----------------------------------
> tools/libxc/xc_linux_osdep.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/libxc/xc_minios.c | 14 +++++++++++++
> tools/libxc/xc_netbsd.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
> tools/libxc/xc_solaris.c | 14 +++++++++++++
> tools/libxc/xenctrlosdep.h | 3 ++
> 6 files changed, 94 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
>
> The only plausibly relevant change would be the .h which is:
>
> diff -r f2212579853a -r 72cbc9120370 tools/libxc/xenctrlosdep.h
> --- a/tools/libxc/xenctrlosdep.h Mon Mar 07 09:01:25 2011 +0000
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xenctrlosdep.h Mon Mar 07 09:01:25 2011 +0000
> @@ -74,6 +74,9 @@ struct xc_osdep_ops
>
> union {
> struct {
> + void *(*alloc_hypercall_buffer)(xc_interface *xch,
> xc_osdep_handle h, int npages);
> + void (*free_hypercall_buffer)(xc_interface *xch, xc_osdep_handle
> h, void *ptr, int npages);
> +
> int (*hypercall)(xc_interface *xch, xc_osdep_handle h,
> privcmd_hypercall_t *hypercall);
>
> void *(*map_foreign_batch)(xc_interface *xch, xc_osdep_handle h,
> uint32_t dom, int prot,
>
> Which doesn't seem likely.
>
> Was this a stubdom or a regular tools build failure?
>
> Ian.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
|
Home