Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2] x86/HVM: avoid pointer wraparound in bufioreq handling

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 22.07.15 at 16:49, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> On 21.07.15 at 18:18, <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 18 Jun 2015, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> >> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/hvm.c
>> >> @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ static void hvm_ioreq_server_disable(str
>> >>  
>> >>  static int hvm_ioreq_server_init(struct hvm_ioreq_server *s, struct 
>> >> domain *d,
>> >>                                   domid_t domid, bool_t is_default,
>> >> -                                 bool_t handle_bufioreq, ioservid_t id)
>> >> +                                 int bufioreq_handling, ioservid_t id)
>> > 
>> > uint8_t?
>> 
>> Why? I'm generally against using fixed width types when you don't
>> really need them. And using uint_least8_t or uint_fast8_t is neither
>> an opton, nor would it make the code look reasonable. Plain int is
>> just fine here.
> 
> You are not just changing integer size but also switching from unsigned
> to signed implicitly. I think it is not a good coding practice.

To me bool (and by implication bool_t) is neither a signed nor
an unsigned type.

Jan


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