On 28/06/2016 08:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 27.06.16 at 18:54, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
>> The two new defines will be a typesafe version of resp. INVALID_GFN and
>> INVALID_MFN.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com>
> Ultimately we'll likely want it the other way around naming-wise,
> but I understand that's far beyond what this series can and should
> do.
There are plenty of uses of INVALID_{M,G}FN which are not part of
{m,g}fn_t, such as in the hypercall API. I am not sure that it is
realistic to change INVALID_{M,G}FN to be boxed types.
~Andrew
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
