From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932568AbXBPRcq (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932602AbXBPRcq (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:46 -0500 Received: from gw.goop.org ([64.81.55.164]:53002 "EHLO mail.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932599AbXBPRcp (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:32:45 -0500 Message-ID: <45D5EABB.5090909@goop.org> Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:32:43 -0800 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20070212) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, virtualization@lists.osdl.org, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, Chris Wright , Zachary Amsden Subject: Re: [patch 04/21] Xen-paravirt: =================================================================== References: <20070216022449.739760547@goop.org> <20070216022530.755967483@goop.org> <20070216091207.GA28196@muc.de> In-Reply-To: <20070216091207.GA28196@muc.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Andi Kleen wrote: > Subject? description? > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> -static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte) >> +static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte) >> > > And what good is that change anyways? unsigned long is the usual style > for addresses. There was a fair amount of inconsistency. In this case, u32 was being used for existing functions dealing with addresses, and I propagated it through. I can switch it all back to unsigned long if you'd prefer. J From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [patch 04/21] Xen-paravirt: =================================================================== Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:32:43 -0800 Message-ID: <45D5EABB.5090909@goop.org> References: <20070216022449.739760547@goop.org> <20070216022530.755967483@goop.org> <20070216091207.GA28196@muc.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20070216091207.GA28196@muc.de> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Andi Kleen Cc: Zachary Amsden , xen-devel@lists.xensource.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Wright , virtualization@lists.osdl.org, Andrew Morton List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org Andi Kleen wrote: > Subject? description? > > > On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:24:53PM -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > >> -static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte) >> +static void vmi_set_pte_present(struct mm_struct *mm, u32 addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte) >> > > And what good is that change anyways? unsigned long is the usual style > for addresses. There was a fair amount of inconsistency. In this case, u32 was being used for existing functions dealing with addresses, and I propagated it through. I can switch it all back to unsigned long if you'd prefer. J