>>> Tim Deegan <Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx> 29.01.09 11:12 >>>
>Well, when it _did_ use struct page_info the code was full of ugly hacks
>to wedge information into fields with misleading names. :) I also like
It has mostly clear names now (I mostly kept their original shadow names),
but it avoids redundancy on fields that really have the same purpose in
and outside of shadow code.
>the type-safety of not having the two structs anonymous-unioned
>together; it's already confusing which field names are valid at any
>time.
If type-safety is a concern, then shadow_page_info could of course be
made a secondary definition. But I think with properly named fields that
may not be as much of a concern.
>I've no objection to having the fields merged if it can be done without
>hoicking lots of internal shadow-code definitions back out into common
>code (it took me ages to separate it all!), and if it gets some real
>benefit (like sharing most of the existing fields).
For this, see my other reply.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel