[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 05/16] xen/mm: Introduce INVALID_GFN_T and INVALID_MFN_T
>>> On 28.06.16 at 09:29, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 28/06/2016 08:16, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 27.06.16 at 18:54, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The two new defines will be a typesafe version of resp. INVALID_GFN and >>> INVALID_MFN. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> >> Ultimately we'll likely want it the other way around naming-wise, >> but I understand that's far beyond what this series can and should >> do. > > There are plenty of uses of INVALID_{M,G}FN which are not part of > {m,g}fn_t, such as in the hypercall API. I am not sure that it is > realistic to change INVALID_{M,G}FN to be boxed types. I can't spot any such use in the public interface. And I also can't see anything wrong with perhaps a few instances of e.g. mfn_x(INVALID_MFN) remaining long term. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |