From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 04/16] x86/hvm: restrict port numbers to uint16_t and sizes to unsigned int Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 16:57:02 +0100 Message-ID: <559D646E020000780008E5FD@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1435940733-20856-1-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> <1435940733-20856-5-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39]) by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1ZCria-00037h-1Q for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 08 Jul 2015 15:57:04 +0000 In-Reply-To: <1435940733-20856-5-git-send-email-paul.durrant@citrix.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Paul Durrant Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Keir Fraser List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 03.07.15 at 18:25, wrote: > Building on the previous patch, this patch restricts portio port numbers > to uint16_t in registration/relocate calls and portio_action_t. It also > changes portio sizes to unsigned int which then allows the io_handler > size field to reduce to an unsigned int. Changing size's type is fine; changing port numbers to uint16_t will - afaict - generate worse code, and hence doesn't seem warranted. I wouldn't mind changing from uint32_t to unsigned int though. Jan