Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH RFC] CODING_STYLE: document intended usage of 
> Types to be used for addresses - from a really generic pov -
> depend on the architecture. Iirc there are some where a signed
> type is the more natural representation, while on x86 and ARM
> we'd certainly use "unsigned long". Since guests may be of
> different bitness, specifying what type to use for their addresses
> would go too far anyway imo.

If the underlying C type depends on the architecture, then the code
should use a suitable typedef.  In generic code this means that the
code is portable and correct; in arch-specific code it means it's
consistent with the generic code.

But that is directly contrary to the advice in your proposed


Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to