[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: Hypercall number assignment convension (was Re: [Xen-devel] Re:[PATCH]: kexec: framework and i386)
On 26 Apr 2006, at 03:34, Tian, Kevin wrote: I prefer to the first one. However not the current __HYPERVISOR_arch_specific_0, *_1, *_2, ..., how about just call it as __HYPERVISOR_arch_specific_ops which contains another namespace defined by different architecture seperately? Sometimes you might want a fast hypercall that doesn't have two levels of demultiplexing, or where the register/stack parameters are carefully crafted and would not fit with an ioctl()-style hypercall (see x86's IRET hypercall). How about reserving 8 or 16 arch-specific hypercalls up front? #define __HYPERVISOR_arch_0 32 ... #define __HYPERVISOR_arch_7 39We could give a bit of breathing space to the non-arch range by starting __HYPERVISOR_arch_* at. e.g., 40 or 48? -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |