On 29/01/2009 08:34, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 27.01.09 11:24 >>>
>> On 27/01/2009 10:16, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> And shouldn't shadow's count field also be widened to BITS_PER_LONG-6?
>> 
>> Would be nice. Hopefully either Tim or Gianluca will see to that.
>
> Actually, I'd like to go a step further: Is there any reason why struct
> shadow_page_info must be separate from struct page_info (rather than
> sharing the definition, requiring some re-ordering of its elements)?
Not really, apart from wanting to keep shadow stuff in one place in a
private header file, I suppose. Would it risk turning page_info's definition
into crazy union soup? If it could be done as something like:
 unsigned long count_info
 union {
 struct { page_info stuff }; // anonymous
 struct { sh_page_info stuff }; // anonymous
 } // anonymous
That would be nicer than what we currently have, I'd agree. And the more
stuff we can pull out of the anonymous union (e.g., perhaps a list_head?)
then the better, of course.
 -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel