>>> On 07.01.15 at 15:47, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: > On 07/01/15 14:42, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >> I kept this field as an int to be able to store NUMA_NO_NODE which I >> thought to be (int)-1. >> >> But now I see that NUMA_NO_NODE is, in fact, 0xff but is promoted to >> (int)-1 by pxm_to_node(). Given that there is a number of tests for >> NUMA_NO_NODE and not for (int)-1, should we then make pxm_to_node() >> return u8 as well? > > I noticed this as well, and found it quite counter intuitive. > > I would suggest fixing NUMA_NO_NODE to -1 and removing some of the > type-punning.
I have to admit that I see no value in wasting 4 bytes for something that for the foreseeable future won't exceed 1 byte. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
