Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 3] management tools portability

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 2006-06-05 at 16:32 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 5 Jun 2006, at 16:00, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> 
> > Since the patches touch a lot of code, it's easy for other checkins to
> > cause conflicts and so it's difficult to maintain the patches out of
> > tree.
> 
> Is this the last set of interface munging we need to do for ppc, or is 
> there more in the pipeline? If these two patches are all that is now 
> required, I'm inclined just to take them.

These are the only patches I know of. I think it's likely there's a
corner or two I missed, but these patches alone get things working for
me.

> Apart from that, patch 3/3 changes lots of mfn fields to u64. Shouldn't 
> they properly use your new xen_pfn_t type? There are a few other frame 
> numbers dotted around the public headers that perhaps ought also to be 
> converted?

I believe the agreement we reached earlier was that *internally* (on any
side of any interface), passing around a single PFN can be type
'unsigned long', since on 32-bit systems that still lets you manage 42
bits of physical memory, and that "should be good enough for anybody."

Unrelated to that, I converted all 'unsigned long' in the *interface* to
be u64. The one exception is that PFN arrays (not single PFNs) became
'xen_pfn_t'.

Does that make sense?

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


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