Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 0 of 3] management tools portability

[Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> I believe the agreement we reached earlier was that *internally* (on 
> any
> side of any interface), passing around a single PFN can be type
> 'unsigned long', since on 32-bit systems that still lets you manage 42
> bits of physical memory, and that "should be good enough for anybody."
Yes. It's only the interface we want to change.

> Unrelated to that, I converted all 'unsigned long' in the *interface* 
> to
> be u64. The one exception is that PFN arrays (not single PFNs) became
> 'xen_pfn_t'.
>
> Does that make sense?
It seems weird/arbitrary to me to change the type only of PFNs that are 
array elements.
 -- Keir

> --
> Hollis Blanchard
> IBM Linux Technology Center
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel