From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D593C04AB6 for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 00:36:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4491F20B1F for ; Wed, 29 May 2019 00:36:49 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4491F20B1F Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:44784 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVmaG-00007T-II for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 20:36:48 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40458) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVmZ8-0007j2-OO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 20:35:39 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVmZ7-0000t8-0u for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 20:35:38 -0400 Received: from mga05.intel.com ([192.55.52.43]:40561) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hVmZ4-0000jW-VL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 May 2019 20:35:35 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga006.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.51]) by fmsmga105.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 28 May 2019 17:35:21 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from richard.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.159.54]) by orsmga006.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 28 May 2019 17:35:20 -0700 Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 08:34:51 +0800 From: Wei Yang To: Juan Quintela Message-ID: <20190529003450.GC24428@richard> References: <20190528014703.21030-1-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <20190528014703.21030-3-richardw.yang@linux.intel.com> <87imtv80aw.fsf@trasno.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87imtv80aw.fsf@trasno.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 192.55.52.43 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] migration/ram.c: use same type in MultiFDPages_t to define offsest X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Wei Yang Cc: Wei Yang , dgilbert@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 10:12:39AM +0200, Juan Quintela wrote: >Wei Yang wrote: >> MultiFDPacket_t.offset is allocated to store MultiFDPages_t.offset. >> >> It would be better to use the same type. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang >> --- >> migration/ram.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/migration/ram.c b/migration/ram.c >> index 4c60869226..dcf4c54eb5 100644 >> --- a/migration/ram.c >> +++ b/migration/ram.c >> @@ -607,7 +607,7 @@ typedef struct { >> uint64_t packet_num; >> uint64_t unused[4]; /* Reserved for future use */ >> char ramblock[256]; >> - uint64_t offset[]; >> + ram_addr_t offset[]; >> } __attribute__((packed)) MultiFDPacket_t; >> >> typedef struct { > >This needs a comment, but it is on purpose. We want that the value on >the wire to be the same for any architecture. (Migration stream is >supposed to be architecture independent). ram_addr_t is architecture >dependent. > Sounds reasonable. >Later, Juan. -- Wei Yang Help you, Help me