Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 April 2008 05:01:36 Liu, Eric E wrote:
>> +/* This structure represents a single trace buffer record. */
>> +struct kvm_trace_rec { + __u32 event:28;
>> + __u32 extra_u32:3;
>> + __u32 cycle_in:1;
>> + __u32 pid;
>> + __u32 vcpu_id;
>> + union {
>> + struct {
>> + __u32 cycle_lo, cycle_hi;
>> + __u32 extra_u32[KVM_TRC_EXTRA_MAX];
>> + } cycle; + struct {
>> + __u32 extra_u32[KVM_TRC_EXTRA_MAX];
>> + } nocycle; + } u;
>> +};
>
> Do we really need bitfields here? They are notoriously non-portable.
>
> Practically speaking, this will prevent me from copying a trace file
> from my big-endian target to my little-endian workstation for
> analysis, at least without some ugly hacking in the userland tool.
Here the main consideration using bitfields is to save storage space for each
record, but as you said it is non-portable for your mentioned case, so should
we need to adjust the struct like this?
__u32 event;
__16 extra_u32;
__16 cycle_in;
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100.
Use priority code J8TL2D2.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
