Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 4/5] xen: introduce XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 10 Aug 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 10.08.12 at 14:10, Stefano Stabellini 
> >>> <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/platform_hypercall.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/x86_64/platform_hypercall.c
> > @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ CHECK_pf_pcpu_version;
> >  
> >  #define COMPAT
> >  #define _XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(t) XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(t)
> > +#define _XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(t) XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(t)
> 
> Was this ...
> 
> >  typedef int ret_t;
> >  
> >  #include "../platform_hypercall.c"
> > --- a/xen/common/compat/multicall.c
> > +++ b/xen/common/compat/multicall.c
> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(multicall_entry_compat_t);
> >  #define call                 compat_call
> >  #define do_multicall(l, n)   compat_multicall(_##l, n)
> >  #define _XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(t) XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(t)
> > +#define _XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(t) XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(t)
> 
> 
> ... and this merely added mechanically? Looking at the rest
> of the patch I don't see why these would be needed. Or would
> these simply belong into the next patch?

They do belong to the next patch, but if I put them in there they would
be lost in the middle of a very long series of otherwise mechanical
substitutions, so I thought it would be a better idea to put them in
this patch. And I can see it worked :)

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel