| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 2/6] trace: fix T_INFO_FIRST_OFFSET
Jan Beulich wrote:
That part your patch doesn't address either - rather than
sizeof(uint16_t) as the first part of the expression you'd need to
use sizeof(struct t_info) or offsetof(struct t_info, mfn_offset).
I was assuming that when someone changed struct t_info that they'd
modify this macro as well; I suppose then that the two complaints are
really different aspects of the same one -- that it might not be clear
to the person who adjusts struct t_info how to translate those changes
into T_INFO_FIRST_OFFSET. I think this way is more clear.
I suppose even better might be to calculate
t_info.mfn_mfn_offset[NR_CPUS] (or perhaps ...[num_possible_cpus]).
Hmm... let me see what I can come up with.
Btw., didn't we agree that public headers shouldn't make use of
language extensions? struct t_info uses a variable sized array,
which is an extension (standard only in C99).
I'm not an expert in this. It's lot more hassle to lay out the data the
way I'd like without it. I'll defer judgment to Keir.
-George
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home