On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 17:46 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Tue, 2015-03-24 at 11:39 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > +void xc_cpumap_clearcpu(int cpu, xc_cpumap_t map)
> > +{
> > + clear_bit(cpu, (unsigned long *)map);
>
> Is it necessary to worry about alignment here, since xc_cpumap_t is
> actually a uint8_t*.
>
> [..]
>
> Or do we rely on all of these always being dynamically allocated (via
> xc_cpumap_alloc) and therefore "suitably aligned so that it may be
> assigned to a pointer to any type of object"[0] following calloc ,
> avoids the issue in practice?
>
> I think we probably do, does anyone disagree with that assessment?
>
FWIW, I agree with it.
The only use case that deviates from that which I could find is:
xc_vcpu_setaffinity()
|
--> xc_hypercall_bounce_pre() ==
xc__hypercall_bounce_pre()
|
--> xc__hypercall_buffer_alloc()
|
--> xc__hypercall_buffer_alloc_pages()
|
--> hypercall_buffer_cache_alloc() ||
linux_privcmd_alloc_hypercall_buffer() (or OS speific
variants)
which is probably still fine, isn't it?
Regards,
Dario
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
