On 02/20/17 02:02 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> 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). > OK, I'll change to the unsigned type.
Thanks, Haozhong _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
