[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87poq0vm4y.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 10:28:29 +0200
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>
Cc: Julien Grall <julien.grall@....com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...e.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH linux v2 0/9] xen: pvhvm: support bootup on secondary vCPUs
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org> writes:
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2016, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> While we're not obliged to have the same type for xen_vcpu_id on all
>> arches I see no point in diverging without a reason. I can do v3 making
>> the mapping uint32
>
> I agree that making the mapping uint32_t would be desirable. It would
> even make sense from the int types point of view in Linux.
>
>>and indicating the missing value as U32_MAX-1 if nobody is against the
>>idea.
>
> Why U32_MAX-1? (int)-1 is (unsigned)U32_MAX. Even
> XEN_INVALID_MAX_VCPU_ID is defined as (~0U).
Yes, my bad, of course it should be U32_MAX.
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists