George Dunlap writes ("Re: [PATCH 7/8] tools/xenalyze: Fix multiple instances
of *HYPERCALL_MAX"):
> On 26/02/16 12:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Does this produce a build error if HYPERCALL_MAX is too small ?
>
> You mean, if it's smaller than at least one of the indexes in the array
> initializati
On 26/02/16 12:33, Ian Jackson wrote:
> George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 7/8] tools/xenalyze: Fix multiple instances of
> *HYPERCALL_MAX"):
>> We HYPERCALL_MAX defined as the maximum enumerated hypercall, and we
> ^ missing word `have' ?
>
>> have PV_HYPERCALL_MAX defined as some other number (p
George Dunlap writes ("[PATCH 7/8] tools/xenalyze: Fix multiple instances of
*HYPERCALL_MAX"):
> We HYPERCALL_MAX defined as the maximum enumerated hypercall, and we
^ missing word `have' ?
> have PV_HYPERCALL_MAX defined as some other number (presumably based
> on experience with actual hype
We HYPERCALL_MAX defined as the maximum enumerated hypercall, and we
have PV_HYPERCALL_MAX defined as some other number (presumably based
on experience with actual hypercalls). Both are used to size arrays
(hypercall_name[] and pv_data.hypercall_count[], respectively).
Rename PV_HYPERCALL_MAX to
