Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/5] xen: improve changes to xen_add_to_physmap

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2012, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 08.08.12 at 09:45, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-08-08 at 08:14 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> >>> On 07.08.12 at 19:07, Stefano Stabellini 
> >> >>> <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
> > wrote:
> >> > Regarding the name, maybe it should be XEN_ADD_TO_PHYSMAP_FIELD?
> >> 
> >> Sounds fine (and I like this better than the ..._ARG one you used
> >> below.
> >> 
> >> > #if (defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)) || 
> >> > (__STDC_VERSION__ >= 
> > 201112L)
> >> 
> >> #if (defined(__GNUC__) && !defined(__STRICT_ANSI__)) || \
> >>     (defined(__STDC_VERSION__) && __STDC_VERSION__ >= 201112L)
> > 
> > The downside of this is that users of this header might need to change
> > their code depending on what compiler they actually build with today (or
> > even what options).
> > 
> > Is adding the ".u" throughout the Xen code base too intrusive?
> 
> I don't know and didn't check; I think the goal was to avoid having
> to change consumers that use gcc for compilation.

For ARM is not an issue, but the size parameter can be used by out of
tree code (V4V?).
That's why I CC'ed Jean, I was hoping he was going to say that it is OK
to add ".u".

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel