[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 08:54, Tian, Kevin wrote: Then we may need to fill that breathing space with do_ni_hypercall to ensure no leakage from NR_hypercall check. If that's the case, how about define the __HYPERVISOR_arch_* at end of 256 spaces,and fill all unused entries with do_ni_hypercall. By that way, the check to illegal hypercall (<256) is a bit slower, however it shouldn't matterfor that rare cases. Yes, it would need filling with ni_hypercall: we already do that on x86 anyway (since hypercall table is rounded up to a power of two). I don't want to put the hypercalls that far up: with one hypercall page x86 will currently have a problem implementing more than 128 hypercalls. I also don't want to put them right at the end of the hypercall space because that would make it harder/uglier to add extra arch hypercalls later on. I think 48-55 would be reasonable. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |