Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH-for-4.13 v5] Rationalize max_grant_frames and max_maptrack_frames handling

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH-for-4.13 v5] Rationalize max_grant_frames and 
max_maptrack_frames handling"):
> What if we use 0xffffffff to denote default instead? That wouldn't
> require changing the type here.

Is there some reason we wouldn't use ~0 to mean default ?

In the tools area we normally spell this as
     ~(some appropriate type)0
to make sure it has the right width.  But if we know the type and it
is of fixed length, as here, 0xffffffffu is OK too.

> The type change here makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, though in
> practice it may not matter. I don't see anyone would specify a value
> that would become negative when cast from uint32 to integer.

The problem with the type change is that in principle we have to audit
all the places the variables are used.

Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel