> -----Original Message----- > From: Jan Beulich [mailto:jbeul...@suse.com] > Sent: 16 January 2015 11:59 > To: Andrew Cooper; Paul Durrant; xen-devel@lists.xen.org > Cc: David Vrabel; Keir (Xen.org) > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5] x86/hvm: Add per-vcpu evtchn upcalls > > >>> 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). >
Thanks :-) Paul > Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
