Hi, I''m puzzled as to why: linux-2.6-xen-sparse/include/xen/blkif.h includes functionality which looks as though it should be common to all OS implementations. It would certainly seem to make more sense if the code in this file was moved to: xen/include/public/io/blkif.h or (if there''s a good reason to keep it in a separate file...) xen/include/public/io/blkif_protocol.h (or whatever name) Can anyone explain why it''s located as it is and, if not, can it be be re-located (and appropriately licensed) under xen/include/public as described in the include/public/COPYING file? Gary -- Gary Pennington Solaris Core OS Sun Microsystems Gary.Pennington@sun.com _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On 19/2/08 10:05, "Gary Pennington" <Gary.Pennington@sun.com> wrote:> I''m puzzled as to why: > > linux-2.6-xen-sparse/include/xen/blkif.h > > includes functionality which looks as though it should be common to all > OS implementations.It''s just glue, and uses gcc-specific pragmas which are not portable across compilers. We could stick a BSD license string at the top of the header. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:42:15AM +0000, Keir Fraser wrote:> On 19/2/08 10:05, "Gary Pennington" <Gary.Pennington@sun.com> wrote: > > > I''m puzzled as to why: > > > > linux-2.6-xen-sparse/include/xen/blkif.h > > > > includes functionality which looks as though it should be common to all > > OS implementations. > > It''s just glue, and uses gcc-specific pragmas which are not portable across > compilers. We could stick a BSD license string at the top of the header. >The pragmas which aren''t portable could be protected by appropriate macros and it would be the responsibility of anyone using non-gcc compilers to provide appropriate support for their environment. I appreciate that it''s not terribly significant, but anyone who needs to provide support for a 32 bit PV guest on a 64 bit host would need code remarkably similar to this and so I don''t think it''s Linux specific. That''s why I suggested re-locating it because it might make life simpler for other developers in the future. If it''s really not a good idea to re-locate it, then I think a BSD license would be an acceptable substitute for my purposes. Thanks, Gary> -- Keir > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel