>>> On 12.04.13 at 13:56, David Vrabel <david.vrabel at citrix.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/13 08:32, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 08.04.13 at 20:59, David Vrabel <david.vrabel at citrix.com> 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
