Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 05/16] xen/mm: Introduce INVALID_GFN_T and INVALID_MFN_T

["Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

>>> On 28.06.16 at 09:29, <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 28/06/2016 08:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 27.06.16 at 18:54, <julien.grall@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The two new defines will be a typesafe version of resp. INVALID_GFN and
>>> INVALID_MFN.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>
>> Ultimately we'll likely want it the other way around naming-wise,
>> but I understand that's far beyond what this series can and should
>> do.
> 
> There are plenty of uses of INVALID_{M,G}FN which are not part of
> {m,g}fn_t, such as in the hypercall API.  I am not sure that it is
> realistic to change INVALID_{M,G}FN to be boxed types.

I can't spot any such use in the public interface. And I also can't
see anything wrong with perhaps a few instances of e.g.
mfn_x(INVALID_MFN) remaining long term.

Jan


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