This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [RFC PATCH 03/35] Add Xen interface header files

On Tue, 2006-05-09 at 21:01 +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 9 May 2006, at 20:48, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> > Is this strictly true though?  The ABI for Power and x86 are not 
> > necessarily dependent on each other.  One could just as easily define 
> > a typedef like:
> >
> > #if defined(__ppc__)
> > typedef uint64_t guest_handle_t;
> > #elif defined(__x86__)
> > typedef unsigned long guest_handle_t;
> > #endif
> >
> > I thought the use of GUEST_HANDLE was to maintain type safety.  It 
> > certainly helps the issue you point out but it's not strictly 
> > necessary.
> >
> > IMHO, this trick makes the code pretty ugly.  I'd rather see it 
> > disappear in favor of something more akin to the above.
> Well, I originally thought it was to allow hiding of machine-address 
> scatter-gather lists for PPC (instead of passing virtual addresses). I 
> seem to recall that's what Hollis said at the time. Clearly hiding 
> something like that does need some macro magic. If it's not for that 
> then I'm not at all for keeping it. It is indeed rather fugly.

The scatter/gather lists are still needed, but they are hidden inside

If you change "unsigned long *" to an integer-based guest_handle_t, you
will lose type-checking when accessing it, and I believe that's why you
created these macros. I'm not particularly worried about type-checking,
so I'd be happy to see them go, as long as we still have typedefs.

Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center

Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>