[XenPPC] Re: xencomm porting and "inline" handles

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 08:27 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> Le Mercredi 27 Septembre 2006 17:10, Hollis Blanchard a Ãcrit :
> > On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 08:19 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > Le Mardi 26 Septembre 2006 20:23, Hollis Blanchard a Ãcrit :
> > > > On Tue, 2006-09-26 at 10:04 +0200, Tristan Gingold wrote:
> > > > > After more work, inline xencomm is not that magic: it doesn't work
> > > > > for modules which are loaded in virtual memory.  So I have to use
> > > > > mini xencomm at least for modules.
> > > >
> > > > What's the problem with modules? Their text/data isn't physically
> > > > contiguous, but where exactly is the problem?
> > >
> > > Inline xencomm only works for physically contiguous area because only the
> > > base address is passed.  Therefore it doesn't work for modules.
> >
> > I understand that; please explain exactly what about the modules isn't
> > working.
> >
> > For example, the stack used in kernel modules is still physically
> > contiguous, so using stack-allocated data structures should work fine.
> > However, making hypercalls directly using global data structures
> > wouldn't work. However, the "inline" code is only being used for the
> > hypercalls that could be made early. Is that the problem? Please
> > identify the specific issue(s).
> Yes, some hypercalls data are global data.
> Sorry, I was not specific enough!

Hi Tristan, *which* hypercalls? Please identify some specific lines of
code that are causing the problems...

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


_______________________________________________
Xen-ppc-devel mailing list
Xen-ppc-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ppc-devel