>>> Julien Grall <julien.gr...@arm.com> 03/11/18 8:44 PM >>>
>On 03/09/2018 05:33 PM, Wei Liu wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 05, 2018 at 07:41:54AM -0700, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 05.03.18 at 15:18, <julien.gr...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> Also, do you have an opinion on Wei's suggestion:
>>>> "What I meant was to make copy_{to,from}_guest* type-safe. I just feel it
>>>> a bit strange you only created a wrapper for this file. I wonder why.
>>>> Note I'm just asking question. That's not necessarily a good idea to
>>>> turn them all in the end."
>>> Well, I didn't really understand what he's after (in the context of
>>> this series) - copy_{to,from}_guest() don't take or return MFNs or
>>> GFNs.
>> Fundamentally Julien's patch is to wrap around an existing API for this
>> one file only. Why is this file special? Why not just make that class of
>> APIs do what he wants?
>> But that is going to be intrusive and a bit counter-intuitive.
>I have quickly looked at it. The major problem I can see is it is not 
>possible to generically define for any typesafe. Indeed, TYPE_SAFE(...) 
>cannot define new macro and, AFAICT, it is not feasible to define static 
>inline for copy_* helpers.
>So we would need to introduce macros for each typesafe by hand. I can 
>move copy_mfn_to_guest in xen/mm.h if people think it could be useful.

First of all - how often do we copy in/out individual MFNs? Not in many places,
I think. Hence I'm afraid I continue to not see the value of such a construct,
especially not as a wider-than-file-scope one.


Xen-devel mailing list

Reply via email to