>>> On 20.02.17 at 03:48, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote: > On 02/17/17 03:07 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: >> >>> On 17.02.17 at 07:39, <haozhong.zh...@intel.com> wrote: >> > @@ -804,7 +800,7 @@ static void mcinfo_clear(struct mc_info *mi) >> > x86_mcinfo_nentries(mi) = 0; >> > } >> > >> > -void *x86_mcinfo_reserve(struct mc_info *mi, int size) >> > +void *x86_mcinfo_reserve(struct mc_info *mi, uint16_t size, uint16_t type) >> >> There's no need for fixed width types here afaics. With them >> replaced by "unsigned int" >> Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> > > The reason I use uint16_t is because the type of mcinfo_common.type > and .size is uint16_t.
I guessed that, but the parameters have no need to be fixed width just because they get stored into some fixed width field. Please remember that dealing with plain (unsigned) int is slightly more efficient than dealing with uint16_t (or uint64_t, btw). Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
