WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

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/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07 of 10] Transitive grant support

To: Steven Smith <Steven.Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07 of 10] Transitive grant support
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 12:41:07 +0100
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "joserenato.santos@xxxxxx" <joserenato.santos@xxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 04:42:07 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20091005111551.GA17388@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcpFrTTdg1tYEvc6Qdq2BpvQTE9WYAAA4UZv
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 07 of 10] Transitive grant support
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
On 05/10/2009 12:15, "Steven Smith" <Steven.Smith@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>>> correct, while we're rev'ing a public interface. Given the definition of
>>> __spacer[], it looks like there's space to have a full 'uint64_t frame' in
>>> that structure too, no problem. A bit of field reordering might be needed to
>>> make everything align naturally yet compactly, is all, I think?
>> Agreed. Not sure though whether uintXX_t is the right thing to use -
>> after all we have xen_pfn_t for exactly this purpose.
> Maybe.  xen_pfn_t probably would be the right type, but, again, it's
> not 32/64 clean, which means it'd need some compat stuff.  Not
> impossible, but kind of annoying.
> 
> Would something like this be acceptable?

Yes, that would be fine by me. I think continuing with xen_pfn_t and making
another shared grant structure be 32/64-bit unclean would be a mistake. A
uint64_t is clearly going to be big enough.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

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