[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 6/9] libxc: create unmapped initrd in domain builder if supported
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 12:03 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > On 30/11/15 11:52, Ian Campbell wrote: > > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 10:51 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 11:47 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > > > > On 30/11/15 11:34, Ian Campbell wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 11:23 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote: > > > > > > On 30/11/15 11:20, Wei Liu wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:35:02AM +0100, Juergen Gross > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > ÂÂÂÂÂ/* initrd parameters as specified in start_info page > > > > > > > > */ > > > > > > > > -ÂÂÂÂunsigned long initrd_start; > > > > > > > > -ÂÂÂÂunsigned long initrd_len; > > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂuint64_t initrd_start; > > > > > > > > +ÂÂÂÂuint64_t initrd_len; > > > > > > > > Â > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think these should be of type xen_vaddr_t. Doesn't make a > > > > > > > difference > > > > > > > in the end though. > > > > > > > > > > > > xen_vaddr_t seems not to be appropriate. It can be either a > > > > > > virtual > > > > > > address or a pfn. > > > > > > > > > > Did you mean a virtual address or a physical _address_? > > > > > Potentially > > > > > mixing > > > > > addresses and frame numbers in a single variable seems liable to > > > > > be > > > > > confusing, at best. > > > > > > > > No, it's really a pfn. And this is part of the stable interface > > > > between > > > > hypervisor and the pv-domU since more than 5 years now. > > > > > > Including the virtual address bit? > > > > > > That's a shame. > > > > ... and that being the case would you mind adding a comment here > > explaining > > the two forms of these variables and the flag which indicates which one > > is > > "in force" at a given moment. > > The comment in the struct already tells us that initrd_start and > initrd_len are in the very same format as in the start_info page. > Both fields are meant to be opaque to most of the domain builder > parts. > > The only function dealing with the differences is xc_dom_build_image() > which already contains the appropriate flag. I added this on your > request. You acked the resulting patch. So why do you want to add > another comment now? I hadn't realised at the time that the semantics of these fields was so, uh, interesting. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |