[PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same

Simon Horman
8604:a51fcb5de470 introduced a discrepancy between the declaration
and definition of xc_linux_save(). In particular the argument for
the suspend pointer to function was null in one and int in the other.
On inspection, int seemed to be correct, so I went with this.
I also fixed up a few other cosmetic discrepancies.

Signed-Off-By: Horms <[hidden email]>

diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c
--- a/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006
+++ b/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006
@@ -23,7 +23,8 @@
 }
 
 int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int io_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
-                  uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags, int (*suspend)(void))
+                  uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */,
+  int (*suspend)(int domid))
 {
     PERROR("xc_linux_save not implemented\n");
     return -1;
diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xenguest.h
--- a/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006
+++ b/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006
@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
  * @parm dom the id of the domain
  * @return 0 on success, -1 on failure
  */
-int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
+int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
                   uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */,
-                  int (*suspend)(int));
+                  int (*suspend)(int domid));
 
 
 /**



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same

Ewan Mellor
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:00:12AM +0000, Horms wrote:

> 8604:a51fcb5de470 introduced a discrepancy between the declaration
> and definition of xc_linux_save(). In particular the argument for
> the suspend pointer to function was null in one and int in the other.
> On inspection, int seemed to be correct, so I went with this.
> I also fixed up a few other cosmetic discrepancies.
>
> Signed-Off-By: Horms <[hidden email]>

Thanks.  I've applied this with s/fd_fd/io_fd, which is what I presume you
meant.

Ewan.


>
> diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c
> --- a/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_ia64_stubs.c Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006
> @@ -23,7 +23,8 @@
>  }
>  
>  int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int io_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
> -                  uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags, int (*suspend)(void))
> +                  uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */,
> +  int (*suspend)(int domid))
>  {
>      PERROR("xc_linux_save not implemented\n");
>      return -1;
> diff -r 1b89e2aed730 -r aa6c2e55dea5 tools/libxc/xenguest.h
> --- a/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 04:05:05 2006
> +++ b/tools/libxc/xenguest.h Thu Jan 12 06:54:59 2006
> @@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
>   * @parm dom the id of the domain
>   * @return 0 on success, -1 on failure
>   */
> -int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
> +int xc_linux_save(int xc_handle, int fd_fd, uint32_t dom, uint32_t max_iters,
>                    uint32_t max_factor, uint32_t flags /* XCFLAGS_xxx */,
> -                  int (*suspend)(int));
> +                  int (*suspend)(int domid));
>  
>  
>  /**
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same

Simon Horman
On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:14:24PM +0000, Ewan Mellor wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:00:12AM +0000, Horms wrote:
>
> > 8604:a51fcb5de470 introduced a discrepancy between the declaration
> > and definition of xc_linux_save(). In particular the argument for
> > the suspend pointer to function was null in one and int in the other.
> > On inspection, int seemed to be correct, so I went with this.
> > I also fixed up a few other cosmetic discrepancies.
> >
> > Signed-Off-By: Horms <[hidden email]>
>
> Thanks.  I've applied this with s/fd_fd/io_fd, which is what I presume you
> meant.

Yes, indeed. Thanks.

--
Horms

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel