[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim"
> From: Tim Deegan [mailto:tim@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 3:31 AM > To: Dan Magenheimer > Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] 32bit xen and "claim" > > 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. Oops, sorry, I was confusing the old code in page_alloc.c that said: #if !defined(__x86_64__) && !defined(__ia64__) when I was reading the new code that says: #if !defined(CONFIG_X86) (why not #ifndef?) Sorry for the ARM-y noise. :-( But as long as I've bothered you already... does the ARM port already (or will it soon) support 64-bit versions of ARM? Dan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |