>>> On 16.01.15 at 12:07, <paul.durr...@citrix.com> wrote:
>> From: Andrew Cooper
>> On 16/01/15 10:09, Paul Durrant wrote:
>> > +#define HVMOP_set_evtchn_upcall_vector 23
>> > +struct xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector {
>> > + uint32_t vcpu;
>> > + uint8_t vector;
>> > +};
>> > +typedef struct xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector
>> xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t;
>> > +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(xen_hvm_set_evtchn_upcall_vector_t);
>>
>> I think you should remove "set" from the structure name. Who knows -
>> someone might want to implement a get hypercall in the future.
>>
>
> I didn't want to make any assumption about future use of the structure and
> followed the convention of tying the name to the hypercall. I'm happy to make
> the name more generic if anyone else also thinks that's a good idea.
I think this is a good idea, and I can take care of the name change
while committing (unless other reasons for another round should
show up).
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
