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

[Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Durrant, Paul writes ("RE: [PATCH-for-4.13 v5] Rationalize max_grant_frames and 
max_maptrack_frames handling"):
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxx>
...
> > 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.
> 
> Can a toolstack maintainer please come up with a concrete suggestion as to 
> what the patch should do then? It's now at v6 and time is short.

I think our proposal is to drop the type change, continue to use
uint32_t everwhere for these values, and specify the "use default"
value to be all-bits-set.

Ian.

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