From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tamas K Lengyel Subject: Re: [PATCH V5 01/12] xen/mem_event: Cleanup of mem_event structures Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 19:13:27 +0100 Message-ID: References: <1423845203-18941-1-git-send-email-tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> <1423845203-18941-2-git-send-email-tamas.lengyel@zentific.com> <54DE32F7.1030106@citrix.com> <54DE3DD8.40109@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <54DE3DD8.40109@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Andrew Cooper Cc: "Tian, Kevin" , "wei.liu2@citrix.com" , Ian Campbell , Razvan Cojocaru , Stefano Stabellini , Tim Deegan , Steven Maresca , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Jan Beulich , "Dong, Eddie" , Andres Lagar-Cavilla , Jun Nakajima , "rshriram@cs.ubc.ca" , Keir Fraser , Daniel De Graaf , "yanghy@cn.fujitsu.com" , Ian Jackson List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 13/02/15 18:03, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Andrew Cooper >> wrote: >>> On 13/02/15 16:33, Tamas K Lengyel wrote: >>>> The public mem_event structures used to communicate with helper applications via >>>> shared rings have been used in different settings. However, the variable names >>>> within this structure have not reflected this fact, resulting in the reuse of >>>> variables to mean different things under different scenarios. >>>> >>>> This patch remedies the issue by clearly defining the structure members based on >>>> the actual context within which the structure is used. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Razvan Cojocaru >>>> Signed-off-by: Tamas K Lengyel >>>> --- >>>> v5: Style fixes >>>> Convert gfn to uint32_t >>> It is perfectly possible to have guests with more memory than is covered >>> by 44 bits, or PV guests whose frames reside above the 44bit boundary. >>> All gfn values should be 64bits wide. >>> >>> ~Andrew >> Internally Xen handles all gfn's as unsigned long's so depending on >> the compiler it may be only 32-bit wide. If gfn must be larger than >> 32-bit than we should use unsigned long long's within Xen. > > x86_32 Xen support was ripped out a while ago. For the time being all > unsigned longs are 64bit. > > With the arm32/64 split, there is a slow move in the direction of > paddr_t rather than unsigned long. > > ~Andrew Ack. Thanks, Tamas