On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 09:58:17 +0100
Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 20:06 +0100, Mukesh Rathor wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 09:52:17 +0100
> > Ian Campbell <ian.campb...@citrix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > drivers/xen/cpu_hotplug.c | 4 +++-
> > > > drivers/xen/events.c | 9 ++++++++-
> > > > drivers/xen/xenbus/xenbus_client.c | 3 ++-
> > > > 7 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > union {
> > > struct {
> > > unsigned long gdt_frames[16], gdt_ents;
> > > } pv;
> > > struct {
> > > unsigned long gdtaddr, gdtsz;
> > > } pvh;
> > > } gdt;
> > >
> > > (I've gone with naming the union gdt instead of u. You might want
> > > therefore to also drop the gdt prefix from the members?)
> >
> > Is it worth it, I mean, making it a union. Would you be OK if I just
> > used gdt_frames[0] and gdt_ends for gdtaddr and size?
>
> What's the problem with making it a union? Seems like you are 80% of
> the way there.
No problem. It resutls in a patch on xen side too. I'll send that too.
> units AFAICT and so can be combined.
>
> How come you don't need the same stuff for ldt*?
Happens natively. Isn't PVH great!
thanks
mukesh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
