[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0001/001] xen: multi page ring support for block devices
- To: "Justin Gibbs" <justing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:03:00 +0000
- Cc: "jeremy@xxxxxxxx" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>, "konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx" <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>, "waldi@xxxxxxxxxx" <waldi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "joe.jin@xxxxxxxxxx" <joe.jin@xxxxxxxxxx>, "weiyi.huang@xxxxxxxxx" <weiyi.huang@xxxxxxxxx>, "virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>, DavidVrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>, SantoshJodh <Santosh.Jodh@xxxxxxxxxx>, "<konrad@xxxxxxxxxx>" <konrad@xxxxxxxxxx>, "dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <dgdegra@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "lersek@xxxxxxxxxx" <lersek@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:03:39 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>
>>> On 14.03.12 at 18:01, Justin Gibbs <justing@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> While we're talking about fixing ring data structures, can RING_IDX
> be defined as a "uint32_t" instead of "unsigned int". The structure
> padding in the ring macros assumes RING_IDX is exactly 4 bytes,
> so this should be made explicit. ILP64 machines may still be a way
> out, but the use of non-fixed sized types in places where size really
> matters just isn't clean.
Yes, if we're going to rev the interface, then any such flaws should be
corrected.
(Also shrinking the Cc list a little.)
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
