> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Jackson <ian.jack...@citrix.com>
> Sent: 29 November 2019 15:47
> To: Wei Liu <w...@xen.org>
> Cc: Durrant, Paul <pdurr...@amazon.com>; Anthony Perard
> <anthony.per...@citrix.com>; xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; George Dunlap
> <george.dun...@citrix.com>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; Jan
> Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Julien Grall <jul...@xen.org>; Konrad
> Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.w...@oracle.com>; Stefano Stabellini
> <sstabell...@kernel.org>; Marek Marczykowski-Górecki
> <marma...@invisiblethingslab.com>; Volodymyr Babchuk
> <volodymyr_babc...@epam.com>; Roger Pau Monne <roger....@citrix.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH-for-4.13 v5] Rationalize max_grant_frames and
> max_maptrack_frames handling
>
> Wei Liu writes ("Re: [PATCH-for-4.13 v5] Rationalize max_grant_frames and
> max_maptrack_frames handling"):
> > What if we use 0xffffffff to denote default instead? That wouldn't
> > require changing the type here.
>
> Is there some reason we wouldn't use ~0 to mean default ?
>
> In the tools area we normally spell this as
> ~(some appropriate type)0
> to make sure it has the right width. But if we know the type and it
> is of fixed length, as here, 0xffffffffu is OK too.
>
> > The type change here makes me feel a bit uncomfortable, though in
> > practice it may not matter. I don't see anyone would specify a value
> > that would become negative when cast from uint32 to integer.
>
> The problem with the type change is that in principle we have to audit
> all the places the variables are used.
>
Can a toolstack maintainer please come up with a concrete suggestion as to what
the patch should do then? It's now at v6 and time is short.
Paul
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
