Jan Beulich writes ("Re: [PATCH RFC] CODING_STYLE: document intended usage of types"): > 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 CODING_STYLE patch. Ian. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xenemail@example.com https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel