On 08.08.2019 12:28, Julien Grall wrote: > On 08/08/2019 08:51, Juergen Gross wrote: >> On 08.08.19 08:58, Jan Beulich wrote: >>> On 07.08.2019 16:31, Juergen Gross wrote: >>> Do we have an implied assumption somewhere that unsigned short is >>> exactly 16 bits wide? I think "val" wants to be uint16_t here (as >>> you really mean "exactly 16 bits"), the two boolean fields want >>> to be bool, and the remaining two ones unsigned int. >> >> But that would increase the size of the union to 4 bytes instead of 2. >> So at least pad and cpu must be unsigned short or (better) uint16_t. > > How about bool irq_safe:1?
That's what I had suggested, indeed. Jürgen's response was for my "unsigned int" suggestion towards the two non-boolean fields. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
