Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"

[Tim Deegan <tim@xxxxxxx>]

At 13:57 -0700 on 01 Nov (1351778261), Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > From: Tim Deegan [mailto:tim@xxxxxxx]
> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"
> > 
> > At 13:34 -0700 on 01 Nov (1351776880), Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> > > With the plan to obsolete the x86 32-bit hypervisor at 4.3,
> > > when prototyping the "claim" hypercall/subop, can I assume
> > > that the CONFIG_X86 code in the hypervisor and, specifically
> > > any separation of the concepts of xen_heap from dom_heap,
> > > can be ignored?
> > >
> > > Or will the ARM version of the hypervisor be requiring
> > > a similar separation of xen_heap vs dom_heap?
> > 
> > Yes, 32-bit ARM has this separation.
> 
> Hmmm... looking at page_alloc.c... does ARM overload CONFIG_X86
> to mean CONFIG-32-bitness then? 

No.  CONFIG_X86 doesn't mean 32-bit, even on x86; it means i386/amd64 as
distinct from MIPS/ARM/PPC.

Tim.

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