[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH V1 07/16] xen/dm: Make x86's DM feature common
On 22.09.2020 18:46, Oleksandr wrote: > > On 14.09.20 18:56, Jan Beulich wrote: > Hi Jan > >> On 10.09.2020 22:22, Oleksandr Tyshchenko wrote: >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/hypercall.h >>> @@ -150,6 +150,18 @@ do_dm_op( >>> unsigned int nr_bufs, >>> XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM(xen_dm_op_buf_t) bufs); >>> >>> +struct dmop_args { >>> + domid_t domid; >>> + unsigned int nr_bufs; >>> + /* Reserve enough buf elements for all current hypercalls. */ >>> + struct xen_dm_op_buf buf[2]; >>> +}; >>> + >>> +int arch_dm_op(struct xen_dm_op *op, >>> + struct domain *d, >>> + const struct dmop_args *op_args, >>> + bool *const_op); >>> + >>> #ifdef CONFIG_HYPFS >>> extern long >>> do_hypfs_op( >> There are exactly two CUs which need to see these two declarations. >> Personally I think they should go into a new header, or at least >> into one that half-way fits (from the pov of its other contents) >> and doesn't get included by half the code base. But maybe it's >> just me ... > > I am afraid, I didn't get why this header is not suitable for keeping > this stuff... While I have no major objection against exposing arch_dm_op() to more than just the relevant CUs, I don't think I'd like to see struct dmop_args becoming visible to "everyone", and in particular changes to it causing a re-build of (almost) everything. Jan
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |