Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH DOCDAY] netif.h: describe request/response structures in terms of binary layout

[Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 13:48 +0100, JÃrgen Groà wrote:
> On 02/25/2015 01:16 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > In RFC style, rather than relying on the implicit assumptions of a
> > particular C ABI.
> >
> > I have also confirmed, using the Python gdb extension technique in
> > [0], that the struct offsets (in a Linux binary at least) are the same
> > as described here.
> >
> > I took the opportunity to also confirm that x86_32, x86_64, arm32 and
> > arm64 are all the same.
> >
> > This highlighted that struct netif_rx_request was missing some
> > explicit padding, which is added here.
> >
> > Lastly, fixup some struct names to allow the generated docs to
> > properly hyperlink, mainly by adding the _t to type names where
> > appropriate, but also s/netif_tx_extra/netif_extra_info_t/.
> >
> > [] 
> > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9788679/how-to-get-the-relative-adress-of-a-field-in-a-structure-dump-c,
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Roger Pau Monnà <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> One general question: should the RFC-like description really contain
> macro names instead of explicit values?

The real purpose here is to document the binary layout of the fields,
the actual meanings of them are already documented (at least somewhat)
elsewhere in the header.

Improvements to that aspect in patch form would obviously still be
appreciated.

> > + * status: -ve: NETIF_RSP_*; +ve: Rx'ed pkt size.
> 
> What is -/+ve?

This was from the existing comment in the struct, I thought it was a
pretty common abbreviation for positive and negative.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel