On 05.06.2023 17:23, Andrew Cooper wrote: > On 05/06/2023 4:19 pm, Roger Pau Monné wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 05, 2023 at 03:43:30PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote: >>> diff --git a/xen/include/xen/sched.h b/xen/include/xen/sched.h >>> index 85242a73d374..854f3e32c00e 100644 >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h >>> @@ -589,6 +589,7 @@ struct domain >>> */ >>> struct { >>> unsigned int val; >>> + unsigned int arch_val; >> While I haven't looked at patch 2, wouldn't such continuation >> information better be encoded in arch_domain in whatever way is more >> suitable for each architecture? > > Well, it's filling a hole here on 64bit builds, which it couldn't do in > arch_domain. > > And it's contained inside teardown{} which already signals it as fairly > magic.
Plus why have each architecture duplicate the field? I expect none of the arch_domain_teardown() instances will remain without an actual use of the new field, mid to long term. I don't want to override Roger's concern, but from my pov Acked-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com> Jan