Re: Hypercall number assignment convension (was Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH]: kexec: framework and i386)

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 24 Apr 2006, at 02:53, Isaku Yamahata wrote:

> I think Rusty's xen share also had a similar problem caused by
> the hypercall number conflict.
> Xen/ia64 with virtual physical model also needs a hypercall number
> for its own use.
> Currently it large enough (=256) that it is unlikly to be used by 
> xen/x86.
> Is there any convension about how to take hypercall number?
> At least hypercall numbers for arch-specific purpose and
> experimental purpose should be defined.
The list of __HYPERVISOR_* defines in public/xen.h in the main xen 
repository is the canonical place. For hypercalls in our tree, simply 
grabbing the next number in sequence usually makes sense. I'm not sure 
whether having structure to the hypercall numbers makes sense (e.g., a 
range for arch-specific usage) -- if so then maybe allocating from 64 
upwards would make sense.
 -- Keir


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