On 29/04/16 18:10, Tim Deegan wrote: > At 06:39 -0600 on 29 Apr (1461911995), Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 29.04.16 at 14:28, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> It would be nice if we could use gfn_t rather than having more unsigned >>> longs. >> I generally agree, but intentionally didn't to match all the other >> shadow code. I'll make changing this dependent on what Tim >> thinks. > Is gfn_t even available here?
Yes. It is available everywhere since c/s 177bd5fb "mem: expose typesafe mfns/gfns/pfns to common code" (I wonder who acked a patch like that ;p) ~Andrew _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
