From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joe Bonasera Subject: Re: [rfc] [patch] "frame number" size in hypercall ABI Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:32:14 -0700 Message-ID: <444657FE.2020401@sun.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 08:24:44 +0100 > From: Keir Fraser > Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: [rfc] [patch] "frame number" size in > hypercall ABI > To: Hollis Blanchard > Cc: xen-devel > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > On 18 Apr 2006, at 20:17, Hollis Blanchard wrote: > ... >> >>I also haven't converted Xen itself to use frameno_t except where >>absolutely necessary. It isn't required to solve my immediate >>problem... > > > I think the patch looks okay in principle, except I notice a couple of > 'framno_t' misspellings. I think 'pfn_t' would be more in keeping with > the Xen naming scheme for arbitrary page frame numbers, but perhaps > that name is a bit unnecessarily cryptic. What is the immediate problem > you're needing to solve? > > -- Keir Please don't use pfn_t, that's what Solaris already uses internally for physical frame numbers. In the Xen code for Solaris, I introduced mfn_t as the corresponding type for Xen's machine frame numbers. frameno_t is fine, as I can just define mfn_t and frameno_t to be the same, but conflicting pfn_t's would be problematic. Joe