On 22/09/15 12:25, Ian Campbell wrote:
Any thoughts/preferences on this library interface regarding:
The use of a (perhaps to be added) grant_ref_t in preference to uint32_t as
it is now?
Probably a good idea. We should also introduce/use domid_t consistently
through the new API as well.
The use of bool rather than int for "writeable"?
Depends if we go for -std=c89 or -std=c99.
Given that it is 2015, I vote for -std=c99 and all the niceties it
brings, such as bool.
Mapping functions returning NULL on failure (rather than e.g MAP_FAILED)?
(current code squashes any underlying MAP_FAILED into NULL, but of course
that prevents mapping things at NULL, but then I'm not sure why we would
want to support that).
+1
Anyone code choosing to try and map a grant ref at 0 can handcode the
systemcalls itself. Sane software will be much happier with NULL as the
failure check.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
