Re: [Xen-devel] page ref/type count overflows

[Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>]

At 08:34 +0000 on 29 Jan (1233218074), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 27.01.09 11:24 >>>
> >On 27/01/2009 10:16, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> And shouldn't shadow's count field also be widened to BITS_PER_LONG-6?
> >
> >Would be nice. Hopefully either Tim or Gianluca will see to that.
> 
> Actually, I'd like to go a step further: Is there any reason why struct
> shadow_page_info must be separate from struct page_info (rather than
> sharing the definition, requiring some re-ordering of its elements)?

Well, when it _did_ use struct page_info the code was full of ugly hacks
to wedge information into fields with misleading names. :) I also like
the type-safety of not having the two structs anonymous-unioned
together; it's already confusing which field names are valid at any
time.

I've no objection to having the fields merged if it can be done without
hoicking lots of internal shadow-code definitions back out into common
code (it took me ages to separate it all!), and if it gets some real
benefit (like sharing most of the existing fields).

Cheers,

Tim.

-- 
Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx>
Principal Software Engineer, Citrix Systems (R&D) Ltd.
[Company #02300071, SL9 0DZ, UK.]

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