[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 05/17] xen/passthrough: x86: Use INVALID_GFN rather than INVALID_MFN

To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 17:43:11 +0100
Cc: sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx, Suravee Suthikulpanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@xxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 16:43:28 +0000
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xen.org>

On 28/06/16 17:17, Julien Grall wrote:
> A variable containing a guest frame should be compared to INVALID_GFN
> and not INVALID_GFN.
>
> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>

I suspect these (mis)uses predate my movement of INVALID_GFN from x86
paging code to common code.

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

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 05/17] xen/passthrough: x86: Use INVALID_GFN rather than INVALID_MFN
  - From: Juergen Gross

References:
- [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 00/17] xen/arm: Use the typesafes gfn and mfn
  - From: Julien Grall
- [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 05/17] xen/passthrough: x86: Use INVALID_GFN rather than INVALID_MFN
  - From: Julien Grall

Prev by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/EFI + Live Patch: avoid symbol address truncation
Next by Date: Re: [Xen-devel] GDBSX Maintainer
Previous by thread: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 05/17] xen/passthrough: x86: Use INVALID_GFN rather than INVALID_MFN
Next by thread: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v5 05/17] xen/passthrough: x86: Use INVALID_GFN rather than INVALID_MFN
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.