> +typedef struct xenpf_settime xenpf_settime_t;
quoted text
> +DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE_STRUCT(xenpf_settime_t);

We aren't using this..
quoted text
> +typedef struct xenpf_add_memtype xenpf_add_memtype_t;
> +DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE_STRUCT(xenpf_add_memtype_t);

.. nor this..
quoted text
> +typedef struct xenpf_del_memtype xenpf_del_memtype_t;
> +DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE_STRUCT(xenpf_del_memtype_t);

.. neither this one.
quoted text
> +typedef struct xenpf_read_memtype xenpf_read_memtype_t;
> +DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE_STRUCT(xenpf_read_memtype_t);

..whoa, didn't know we had that many.
quoted text
> +
> +#define XENPF_microcode_update    35
> +struct xenpf_microcode_update {
> +    /* IN variables. */
> +    GUEST_HANDLE(void) data;          /* Pointer to microcode data */
> +    uint32_t length;                  /* Length of microcode data. */
> +};
> +typedef struct xenpf_microcode_update xenpf_microcode_update_t;
> +DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE_STRUCT(xenpf_microcode_update_t);

OK, we are using this one.

.. snip .. 

Why not just introduce the one we are using (just one right now)
and on subsequent patches that enable the functionality add it in this file?
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/