[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3 for-4.14] pvcalls: Document correctly and explicitely the padding for all arches
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- From: Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:42:37 +0100
- Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, paul@xxxxxxx, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>, Julien Grall <jgrall@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, George Dunlap <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 09:42:44 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 16/06/2020 10:36, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 16.06.2020 11:19, Julien Grall wrote:
On 16/06/2020 09:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 13.06.2020 20:41, Julien Grall wrote:
@@ -73,10 +76,18 @@ struct xen_pvcalls_request {
uint32_t flags;
grant_ref_t ref;
uint32_t evtchn;
+#ifndef __i386__
+ uint8_t pad[4];
+#endif
Where possible I think uint32_t would be slightly better to use.
OOI, why?
Because everything else here uses the wider type, plus the
question of why use a compound type (array) when a simple
one does.
This is pretty much a matter of taste. In this case, I decided to
specify the padding the same way accross all the structure.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
|
