>>> On 12.04.13 at 13:56, David Vrabel <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/04/13 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 08.04.13 at 20:59, David Vrabel <[email protected]> wrote: >>> @@ -152,6 +152,63 @@ typedef struct xen_kexec_range { >>> unsigned long start; >>> } xen_kexec_range_t; >>> >>> +#if __XEN_INTERFACE_VERSION__ >= 0x00040300 >>> +/* >>> + * A contiguous chunk of a kexec image and it's destination machine >>> + * address. >>> + */ >>> +typedef struct xen_kexec_segment { >>> + XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64(const_void) buf; >>> + uint64_t buf_size; >>> + uint64_t dest_maddr; >>> + uint64_t dest_size; >> >> So you made uint64_aligned_t available in the previous patch, >> but now you don't use it? > > It's not needed here. Should I use uint64_aligned_t anyway? > > It was easier to make both XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_64() and uint64_aligned_t > available than to make only one.
Ah, okay. And now that I think about it again, perhaps the less extensions we need to use, the better. So I guess it's fine to keep things the way they are in this regard. Jan _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
