Horms
2006-Jan-12 07:00 UTC
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same
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 <horms@verge.net.au>
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
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Ewan Mellor
2006-Jan-12 12:14 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same
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 <horms@verge.net.au>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 > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Horms
2006-Jan-13 02:23 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same
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 <horms@verge.net.au> > > 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 Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel