On 27.11.2020 12:57, Julien Grall wrote: > On 27/11/2020 11:42, Jan Beulich wrote: >> I have to admit though that I'm not fully happy with the uses of >> "unsigned char" and "unsigned short". Yes, I did ask for this >> change (based on ./CODING_STYLE), but I did also hint towards the >> use of bitfields. If bitfields aren't an option here to achieve >> the desired dense packing, perhaps this desire should be permitted >> as another reason to use fixed width types. (Question goes more >> towards everyone who cares than to you specifically.) > > I think uint*_t would make sense here because they are storing > information received from an hypercall (all the fields should be fixed > size there).
"storing information received from a hypercall" is specifically not a reason to use fixed width types, imo. All of uint8_t, uint16_t, and uint32_t values coming from hypercalls are fine to be passed around and stored as unsigned int, just as an example. It is solely the packing aspect which might matter here. > But I am also fine the current patch as it is still readable. Good, thanks for checking. Jan
