On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 15:25 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Now that we have two cases where patches against hvmloader got
> submitted needing to include the hypervisor's errno.h (for the host's
> system header not necessarily reflecting the correct numbers), take
> this as a strong sign that we need t
On 15/01/15 16:49, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 15.01.15 at 17:27, wrote:
>> On 15/01/15 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> Now that we have two cases where patches against hvmloader got
>>> submitted needing to include the hypervisor's errno.h (for the host's
>>> system header not necessarily reflecting
>>> On 15.01.15 at 17:27, wrote:
> On 15/01/15 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Now that we have two cases where patches against hvmloader got
>> submitted needing to include the hypervisor's errno.h (for the host's
>> system header not necessarily reflecting the correct numbers), take
>> this as a st
On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 16:27 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 15/01/15 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> > Now that we have two cases where patches against hvmloader got
> > submitted needing to include the hypervisor's errno.h (for the host's
> > system header not necessarily reflecting the correct nu
On 15/01/15 15:25, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Now that we have two cases where patches against hvmloader got
> submitted needing to include the hypervisor's errno.h (for the host's
> system header not necessarily reflecting the correct numbers), take
> this as a strong sign that we need to make the error
Now that we have two cases where patches against hvmloader got
submitted needing to include the hypervisor's errno.h (for the host's
system header not necessarily reflecting the correct numbers), take
this as a strong sign that we need to make the error return values part
of the hypervisor ABI (whi
