On 07/07/2021 13:54, Jan Beulich wrote:
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
Well, what I am trying to prevent is surprise where the caller
mistakenly pass a negative value that will be interpreted as a positive
value...
Such issues are beyong annoying to debug...
> ./CODING_STYLE is unambiguous in cases like this one.
Hmmm... The coding style mention the fixed size but nothing about the
signedness of the type...
The alternative suggestion is to keep a unsigned type but check the bit
31 is not set.
Cheers,
--
Julien Grall
