On 07.07.2021 14:51, Julien Grall wrote: > On 07/07/2021 02:02, Igor Druzhinin wrote: >> Current unit8_t for pirq argument in this interface is too restrictive >> causing failures on modern hardware with lots of GSIs. That extends down to >> XEN_DOMCTL_irq_permission ABI structure where it needs to be fixed up >> as well. Internal Xen structures appear to be fine. Existing users of >> the interface in tree (libxl, ocaml and python bindings) are already using >> int for pirq representation that should be wide enough. > > By "int", I am assuming you imply "signed int", is that correct? > > If so, should the function xc_domain_irq_permission() interface take an > int in parameter and check it is not negative?
Please let's not make things worse than they are, the more that ./CODING_STYLE is unambiguous in cases like this one. If we mean non-negative values, the type used should be an unsigned one. In pre-existing code this will obviously only get changed over time. Jan
