From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?B?TWF0aGlldSBHYWduw6k=?= Subject: Re: [PATCH 3 of 4] xl: add support for vif rate limiting Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:40:38 -0400 Message-ID: <4F68CF26.1070701@iweb.com> References: <9255d667b2f63c120980.1332206932@mgagne.users.dev.iweb.com> <1332242786.9223.215.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1332242786.9223.215.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.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: Stefano Stabellini Cc: Ian Jackson , Ian Campbell , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 3/20/12 7:26 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 11:16 +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >> >> wouldn't it make sense to just use a uint64_t for >> rate_bytes_per_interval and rate_interval_usecs? > > It needn't be a barrier to this but FWIW Linux parses these into > "unsigned long", but it does at least appear to do proper overflow > checking. Xend/xm defaults to unlimited when bytes_per_interval or interval_usecs overflows a 32bit unsigned long. Internally, xen-netback will parse those values into "unsigned long" which would otherwise overflow/wrap if we used uint64_t: http://lxr.linux.no/#linux+v3.3/drivers/net/xen-netback/common.h#L86 -- Mathieu