From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/bigmem: eliminate struct domain address
 width restriction
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 13:14:24 +0100
Message-ID: <1441109664.27618.56.camel@citrix.com>
References: <55DD89B1020000780009D0EB@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
	<1441105060.27618.37.camel@citrix.com>
	<55E5AEED020000780009E91B@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta5.messagelabs.com ([195.245.231.135])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=679300c25=Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZWkSL-0004vR-16
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Tue, 01 Sep 2015 12:14:29 +0000
In-Reply-To: <55E5AEED020000780009E91B@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Keir Fraser <keir@xen.org>, xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On Tue, 2015-09-01 at 05:58 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > 
> > > > On 01.09.15 at 12:57, <ian.campbell@citrix.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 01:41 -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > > @@ -225,10 +226,12 @@ static unsigned int __init noinline _dom
> > >  
> > >      return bits;
> > >  }
> > > +#endif
> > >  
> > >  struct domain *alloc_domain_struct(void)
> > >  {
> > >      struct domain *d;
> > > +#ifndef CONFIG_BIGMEM
> > >      /*
> > >       * We pack the PDX of the domain structure into a 32-bit field 
> > > within
> > >       * the page_info structure. Hence the MEMF_bits() restriction.
> > > @@ -237,12 +240,16 @@ struct domain *alloc_domain_struct(void)
> > >  
> > >      if ( unlikely(!bits) )
> > >           bits = _domain_struct_bits();
> > > +#else
> > > +# define bits 0
> > 
> > const unsigned int bits = 0;
> > 
> > Seems nicer than the trailing #undef?
> 
> Hmm, yes, in cases like this I agree (assuming that all compiler
> versions we care about will be intelligent enough to eliminate the
> variable).

Even if it weren't I don't think it would be noticeable in
alloc_domain_struct().

Ian.