Re: [Xen-devel] [v6][PATCH 5/7] hvmloader: introduce hypercall for xc_reserved_device_memory_map

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 10.09.14 at 23:41, <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  From: Chen, Tiejun
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:50 PM
>> 
>> We will introduce that hypercall xc_reserved_device_memory_map
>> to hvmloader.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Tiejun Chen <tiejun.chen@xxxxxxxxx>
>> 
>> diff --git a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c 
>> b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
>> index 80d822f..90dbb6e 100644
>> --- a/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
>> +++ b/tools/firmware/hvmloader/util.c
>> @@ -828,6 +828,28 @@ int hpet_exists(unsigned long hpet_base)
>>      return ((hpet_id >> 16) == 0x8086);
>>  }
>> 
>> +int get_reserved_device_memory_map(struct
>> xen_mem_reserved_device_memory entries[],
>> +                                   uint32_t max_entries)
> 
> usually claim as a pointer instead of array as the parameter.

I see nothing wrong with the array syntax; if what is being referred
to in fact is more than one object, I'd actually slightly favor this
syntax. All that keeping in mind that both forms mean _exactly_
the same.

Jan


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