[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] RFC: vaddr_t and vsize_t


  • To: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx>, <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 15:49:35 +0000
  • Delivery-date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:49:13 -0800
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Acc6TxYLVIyBUqZCEduIGwAX8io7RQ==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] RFC: vaddr_t and vsize_t

On 17/1/07 15:17, "Christoph Egger" <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> vaddr_t is used when a virtual address is meant. It is an unsigned integer and
> its size always matches sizeof(void *).
> vsize_t is used when the virtual address space is meant. It is an unsigned
> integer and its size always matches the whole size of the virtual address
> space.

Is this distinction ever useful?

The assumption that a pointer fits in a long is rather ingrained into Xen's
code base. Any attempt to remove that assumption is going to need some big
patches, and it's really not clear that we ought to care as I'm sure it's
true for any architecture we can conceive of caring one jot about.

 -- Keir


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.