From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 6/9] libxc: create unmapped initrd in
 domain builder if supported
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:47:34 +0100
Message-ID: <565C2946.60109@suse.com>
References: <1447335816-31772-1-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com>
	<1447335816-31772-7-git-send-email-jgross@suse.com>
	<5655DDDC.5000005@oracle.com> <5656B626.6080305@suse.com>
	<20151130102002.GF21588@citrix.com> <565C23A6.4080707@suse.com>
	<1448879699.15768.14.camel@citrix.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1448879699.15768.14.camel@citrix.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>
Cc: Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, roger.pau@citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 30/11/15 11:34, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 11:23 +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 30/11/15 11:20, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 08:35:02AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>  
>>>>      /* initrd parameters as specified in start_info page */
>>>> -    unsigned long initrd_start;
>>>> -    unsigned long initrd_len;
>>>> +    uint64_t initrd_start;
>>>> +    uint64_t initrd_len;
>>>>  
>>>
>>> I think these should be of type xen_vaddr_t. Doesn't make a difference
>>> in the end though.
>>
>> xen_vaddr_t seems not to be appropriate. It can be either a virtual
>> address or a pfn.
> 
> Did you mean a virtual address or a physical _address_? Potentially mixing
> addresses and frame numbers in a single variable seems liable to be
> confusing, at best.

No, it's really a pfn. And this is part of the stable interface between
hypervisor and the pv-domU since more than 5 years now.


Juergen