On 22.01.2021 21:02, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 17:31 +0100 on 22 Jan (1611336662), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> Because of this having been benign (due to none of the callback
>> tables specifying non-NULL entries there), wouldn't it make
>> sense to dimension the tables by SH_type_max_shadow + 1 only?
>>
On 22.01.2021 21:02, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 17:31 +0100 on 22 Jan (1611336662), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 22.01.2021 14:11, Tim Deegan wrote:
>>> At 16:10 +0100 on 14 Jan (1610640627), Jan Beulich wrote:
hash_{domain,vcpu}_foreach() have a use each of literal 15. It's not
clear to me what
Hi,
At 17:31 +0100 on 22 Jan (1611336662), Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 22.01.2021 14:11, Tim Deegan wrote:
> > At 16:10 +0100 on 14 Jan (1610640627), Jan Beulich wrote:
> >> hash_{domain,vcpu}_foreach() have a use each of literal 15. It's not
> >> clear to me what the proper replacement constant
On 22.01.2021 14:11, Tim Deegan wrote:
> At 16:10 +0100 on 14 Jan (1610640627), Jan Beulich wrote:
>> This is a remnant from 32-bit days, having no place anymore where a
>> shadow of this type would be created.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
>> ---
>> hash_{domain,vcpu}_foreach() have a use
Hi,
At 16:10 +0100 on 14 Jan (1610640627), Jan Beulich wrote:
> This is a remnant from 32-bit days, having no place anymore where a
> shadow of this type would be created.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
> ---
> hash_{domain,vcpu}_foreach() have a use each of literal 15. It's not
> clear to me
This is a remnant from 32-bit days, having no place anymore where a
shadow of this type would be created.
Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich
---
hash_{domain,vcpu}_foreach() have a use each of literal 15. It's not
clear to me what the proper replacement constant would be, as it
doesn't look as if
