>>> On 07.01.15 at 16:34, <boris.ostrov...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 01/07/2015 10:07 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> 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. > > The downside of going to u8 is that we'd be limiting number of nodes to > 254, which is somewhat awkward. OTOH we already do this by testing > nodeID against 0xff in various places.
With NODES_SHIFT being 6 and hence MAX_NUMNODES being 0x40, we can't reach 254 right now anyway. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
