>>> On 22.06.17 at 07:16, <chao....@intel.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 08:34:20AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>> On 24.05.17 at 08:56, <chao....@intel.com> wrote:
>>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vmx/vmx.c
>>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static int vmx_vmfunc_intercept(struct cpu_user_regs
>>> *regs);
>>> struct vmx_pi_blocking_vcpu {
>>> struct list_head list;
>>> spinlock_t lock;
>>> + uint32_t counter;
>>
>>Is there any reason for this to be fixed width? Other than that the
>
> I will use 'int' instead of 'uint32_t'.
Can the counter go negative? I don't think so, in which case you
really want to use "unsigned int".
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
